Nonresponse Bias in Estimates From the 2012 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

Esther Hing, Iris M Shimizu, Anjali Talwalkar
{"title":"Nonresponse Bias in Estimates From the 2012 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.","authors":"Esther Hing,&nbsp;Iris M Shimizu,&nbsp;Anjali Talwalkar","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) is an annual, nationally representative sample survey of physicians and of visits to physicians. Two major changes were made to the 2012 NAMCS to support reliable state estimates. The sampling design changed from an area sample to a fivefold-larger list sample of physicians stratified by the nine U.S. Census Bureau divisions and 34 states. At the same time, the data collection mode changed from paper forms to laptop-assisted data collection and from physician or office staff abstraction of medical records to predominantly Census interviewer abstraction using automated Patient Record Forms (PRFs).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This report presents an analysis of potential nonresponse bias in 2012 NAMCS estimates of physicians and visits to physicians. This analysis used two sets of physician-based estimates: one measuring the completion of the physician induction interview and another based on completing any PRF. Evaluation of visit response was measured by the percentage of expected PRFs completed. For each type of physician estimate, response was evaluated by (a) comparing percent distributions of respondents and nonrespondents by physician characteristics available for all in-scope sample physicians, (b) comparing response rates by physician characteristics with the national response rate, and (c) analyzing nonresponse bias after adjustments for nonresponse were applied in survey weights. For visit estimates, response was evaluated by (a) comparing the percent distributions of expected visits and completed visits, (b) comparing visit response rates by physician characteristics with the national visit response rate, and (c) analyzing visit-level nonresponse bias after adjustments for nonresponse were applied in visit survey weights. Finally, potential bias in the two physician-level estimates was computed by comparing them with those from an external survey.</p>","PeriodicalId":23577,"journal":{"name":"Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research","volume":" 171","pages":"1-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) is an annual, nationally representative sample survey of physicians and of visits to physicians. Two major changes were made to the 2012 NAMCS to support reliable state estimates. The sampling design changed from an area sample to a fivefold-larger list sample of physicians stratified by the nine U.S. Census Bureau divisions and 34 states. At the same time, the data collection mode changed from paper forms to laptop-assisted data collection and from physician or office staff abstraction of medical records to predominantly Census interviewer abstraction using automated Patient Record Forms (PRFs).

Objectives: This report presents an analysis of potential nonresponse bias in 2012 NAMCS estimates of physicians and visits to physicians. This analysis used two sets of physician-based estimates: one measuring the completion of the physician induction interview and another based on completing any PRF. Evaluation of visit response was measured by the percentage of expected PRFs completed. For each type of physician estimate, response was evaluated by (a) comparing percent distributions of respondents and nonrespondents by physician characteristics available for all in-scope sample physicians, (b) comparing response rates by physician characteristics with the national response rate, and (c) analyzing nonresponse bias after adjustments for nonresponse were applied in survey weights. For visit estimates, response was evaluated by (a) comparing the percent distributions of expected visits and completed visits, (b) comparing visit response rates by physician characteristics with the national visit response rate, and (c) analyzing visit-level nonresponse bias after adjustments for nonresponse were applied in visit survey weights. Finally, potential bias in the two physician-level estimates was computed by comparing them with those from an external survey.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2012年全国门诊医疗调查估计的无反应偏倚
背景:全国门诊医疗调查(NAMCS)是一项年度、具有全国代表性的医生和医生就诊抽样调查。为了支持可靠的国家估计,2012年国家预算系统进行了两项重大修改。抽样设计从一个地区样本改为一个五倍大的医生名单样本,由美国人口普查局的九个部门和34个州分层。与此同时,数据收集模式从纸质表格转变为笔记本电脑辅助数据收集,从医生或办公室工作人员提取医疗记录转变为主要使用自动患者记录表格(prf)的人口普查采访者提取。目的:本报告分析了2012年NAMCS对医生和医生就诊的评估中潜在的无反应偏倚。该分析使用了两组基于医生的估计:一组测量医生入职面试的完成情况,另一组基于任何PRF的完成情况。通过预期PRFs完成的百分比来衡量访问反应的评价。对于每种类型的医生估计,通过(a)比较所有范围内样本医生可用的医生特征的应答者和非应答者的百分比分布来评估应答,(b)比较医生特征的应答率与全国应答率,以及(c)在调查权重中应用无应答调整后分析无应答偏差。对于访问估计,通过(a)比较预期访问和完成访问的百分比分布来评估响应,(b)比较医生特征的访问响应率与全国访问响应率,以及(c)在访问调查权重中应用非响应调整后分析访问水平无响应偏差。最后,通过与外部调查的结果进行比较,计算两种医生水平估计的潜在偏倚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Studies of new statistical methodology including experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, and contributions to statistical theory. Studies also include comparison of U.S. methodology with those of other countries.
期刊最新文献
Calibration Weighting Methods for the National Center for Health Statistics Research and Development Survey. Assessing Linkage Eligibility Bias in the National Health Interview Survey. Assessing Linkage Eligibility Bias in the National Health Interview Survey. An Investigation of Nonresponse Bias and Survey Location Variability in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015-2018: Sample Design and Estimation Procedures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1