Nonresponse in a follow-up to a representative telephone survey of adult drinkers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Examined predictors of nonresponse among respondents who agreed to receive a follow-up questionnaire on alcohol use after participating in a representative telephone survey, and among respondents who did and did not return the follow-up questionnaire. METHOD: A total of 2,072 (52.2% female) respondents to a representative monthly telephone survey were assessed on sociodemographic variables and alcohol use. Respondents were asked whether they would be willing to fill out an additional mailed questionnaire on alcohol use and attitudes toward drinking. Almost half (n = 956; 46%) of respondents agreed to participate in the follow-up survey; 430 (45%) of those individuals completed and returned the questionnaire. RESULTS: Agreement to receive the follow-up questionnaire was unrelated to alcohol use. Regarding gender, men were 1.42 times more likely than women to exhibit nonresponse in returning the follow-up questionnaire (95% CI: 1.08-1.42). After adjusting for the impact of demographic factors, respondents who consumed alcohol at least once per week were 1.43 times more likely than respondents who drank less frequently to exhibit nonresponse in returning the questionnaire (95% CI: 1.05-1.93). Respondents who consumed five or more standard drinks at least once per week were 1.83 times more likely to exhibit nonresponse in returning the questionnaire, compared with respondents who engaged in heavy drinking less frequently (95% CI: 1.15-2.92). CONCLUSIONS: Mailout questionnaires following a representative telephone survey may bias samples toward obtaining fewer men, fewer weekly drinkers and fewer heavier drinkers. Although the magnitude of these biases were relatively small, epidemiological studies on alcohol use may wish to oversample men and heavier drinkers in follow-up studies recruiting from population surveys.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".