79
IRUS Total
Downloads
  Altmetric

Impacts of study design on sample size, participation bias, and outcome measurement: A case study from bicycling research

File Description SizeFormat 
JTH_2019_222_Revised_Manuscript_changes_not_marked.pdfAccepted version862.37 kBAdobe PDFView/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