TY - JOUR
T1 - Recruiting injection drug users
T2 - A three-site comparison of results and experiences with respondent-driven and targeted sampling procedures
AU - Robinson, William T.
AU - Risser, Jan M H
AU - McGoy, Shanell
AU - Becker, Adam B.
AU - Rehman, Hafeez
AU - Jefferson, Mary
AU - Griffin, Vivian
AU - Wolverton, Marcia
AU - Tortu, Stephanie
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported in part by grants PA 04 - 017 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments as well as Abu Abdul-Quader and the CDC - National HIV Behavioral Surveillance project staff for guidance and technical assistance.
PY - 2006/11
Y1 - 2006/11
N2 - Several recent studies have utilized respondent-driven sampling (RDS) methods to survey hidden populations such as commercial sex-workers, men who have sex with men (MSM) and injection drug users (IDU). Few studies, however, have provided a direct comparison between RDS and other more traditional sampling methods such as venue-based, targeted or time/space sampling. The current study sampled injection drug users in three U.S. cities using RDS and targeted sampling (TS) methods and compared their effectiveness in terms of recruitment efficiency, logistics, and sample demographics. Both methods performed satisfactorily. The targeted method required more staff time per-recruited respondent and had a lower proportion of screened respondents who were eligible than RDS, while RDS respondents were offered higher incentives for participation.
AB - Several recent studies have utilized respondent-driven sampling (RDS) methods to survey hidden populations such as commercial sex-workers, men who have sex with men (MSM) and injection drug users (IDU). Few studies, however, have provided a direct comparison between RDS and other more traditional sampling methods such as venue-based, targeted or time/space sampling. The current study sampled injection drug users in three U.S. cities using RDS and targeted sampling (TS) methods and compared their effectiveness in terms of recruitment efficiency, logistics, and sample demographics. Both methods performed satisfactorily. The targeted method required more staff time per-recruited respondent and had a lower proportion of screened respondents who were eligible than RDS, while RDS respondents were offered higher incentives for participation.
KW - Hidden populations
KW - Injection drug use
KW - Respondent-driven sampling
KW - Sampling methodology
KW - Targeted sampling
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845615949&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845615949&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11524-006-9100-3
DO - 10.1007/s11524-006-9100-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 16933101
AN - SCOPUS:33845615949
VL - 83
SP - i29-i38
JO - Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine
JF - Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine
SN - 1099-3460
IS - 7 SUPPL.
ER -
