79
IRUS TotalDownloads
Altmetric
Impacts of study design on sample size, participation bias, and outcome measurement: A case study from bicycling research
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
JTH_2019_222_Revised_Manuscript_changes_not_marked.pdf | Accepted version | 862.37 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Title: | Impacts of study design on sample size, participation bias, and outcome measurement: A case study from bicycling research |
Authors: | Branion-Calles, M Winters, M Nelson, T De Nazelle, A Int Panis, L Avila-Palencia, I Anaya-Boig, E Rojas-Rueda, D Dons, E Gotschi, T |
Item Type: | Journal Article |
Abstract: | Introduction Measuring bicycling behaviour is critical to bicycling research. A common study design question is whether to measure bicycling behaviour once (cross-sectional) or multiple times (longitudinal). The Physical Activity through Sustainable Transport Approaches (PASTA) project is a longitudinal cohort study of over 10,000 participants from seven European cities over two years. We used PASTA data as a case study to investigate how measuring once or multiple times impacted three factors: a) sample size b) participation bias and c) accuracy of bicycling behaviour estimates. Methods We compared two scenarios: i) as if only the baseline data were collected (cross-sectional approach) and ii) as if the baseline plus repeat follow-ups were collected (longitudinal approach). We compared each approach in terms of differences in sample size, distribution of sociodemographic characteristics, and bicycling behaviour. In the cross-sectional approach, we measured participants long-term bicycling behaviour by asking for recall of typical weekly habits, while in the longitudinal approach we measured by taking the average of bicycling reported for each 7-day period. Results Relative to longitudinal, the cross-sectional approach provided a larger sample size and slightly better representation of certain sociodemographic groups, with worse estimates of long-term bicycling behaviour. The longitudinal approach suffered from participation bias, especially the drop-out of more frequent bicyclists. The cross-sectional approach under-estimated the proportion of the population that bicycled, as it captured ‘typical’ behaviour rather than 7-day recall. The magnitude and directionality of the difference between typical weekly (cross-sectional approach) and the average 7-day recall (longitudinal approach) varied depending on how much bicycling was initially reported. Conclusions In our case study we found that measuring bicycling once, resulted in a larger sample with better representation of sociodemographic groups, but different estimates of long-term bicycling behaviour. Passive detection of bicycling through mobile apps could be a solution to the identified issues. |
Issue Date: | 1-Dec-2019 |
Date of Acceptance: | 12-Sep-2019 |
URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/80109 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.jth.2019.100651 |
ISSN: | 2214-1405 |
Publisher: | Elsevier |
Start Page: | 1 |
End Page: | 12 |
Journal / Book Title: | Journal of Transport and Health |
Volume: | 15 |
Copyright Statement: | © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This manuscript is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
Sponsor/Funder: | Commission of the European Communities |
Funder's Grant Number: | 602624 |
Keywords: | Science & Technology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Technology Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Transportation Bicycling Bias Exposure Survey participation Longitudinal Cross-sectional Study design PROSPECTIVE COHORT FOLLOW-UP CYCLISTS Science & Technology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Technology Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Transportation Bicycling Bias Exposure Survey participation Longitudinal Cross-sectional Study design PROSPECTIVE COHORT FOLLOW-UP CYCLISTS 1117 Public Health and Health Services 1205 Urban and Regional Planning 1507 Transportation and Freight Services |
Publication Status: | Published |
Article Number: | ARTN 100651 |
Online Publication Date: | 2019-09-20 |
Appears in Collections: | Centre for Environmental Policy Grantham Institute for Climate Change |