Decreasing Survey Response Rates in the Time of COVID-19: Implications for Analyses of Population Health and Health Inequities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To examine whether, and if so how, US national and state survey response rates changed after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. We compared the change in response rates between 2020 and 2019 of 6 (3 social and economic, 3 health focused) major US national surveys (2 with state response rates). Results. All the ongoing surveys except 1 reported relative decreases (∼29%) in response rates. For example, the household response rate to the US Census American Community Survey decreased from 86.0% in 2019 to 71.2% in 2020, and the response rate of the US National Health Interview Survey decreased from 60.0% to 42.7% from the first to the second quarter of 2020. For all surveys, the greatest decreases in response rates occurred among persons with lower income and lower education. Conclusions. Socially patterned decreases in response rates pose serious challenges and must be addressed explicitly in all studies relying on data obtained since the onset of the pandemic. Public Health Implications. Artifactual reduction of estimates of the magnitude of health inequities attributable to differential response rates could adversely affect efforts to reduce these inequities. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(6):667–670. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307267 )
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 | 0.325 | 0.491 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".