Selection bias in general practice research: analysis in a cohort of pregnant Danish women

References

• Asch S, Connor SE, Hamilton EG, et al. Problems in recruiting community-based physicians for health services research. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(8):591–599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(10):1129–1136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings SM, Savitz LA, Konrad TR. Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res. 2001;35(6):1347–1355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pit SW, Vo T, Pyakurel S. The effectiveness of recruitment strategies on general practitioner's survey response rates – a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burt A, Ryan B, Thorpe C, et al. How to obtain excellent response rates when surveying physicians. Fam Pract. 2009;26(1):65–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins D, Harris MF, Tan J, et al. Engaging participants in a complex intervention trial in Australian General Practice. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosemann T, Szecsenyi J. General practitioners' attitudes towards research in primary care: qualitative results of a cross sectional study. BMC Fam Pract. 2004;5(1):31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hummers-Pradier E, Scheidt-Nave C, Martin H, et al. Simply no time? Barriers to GPs' participation in primary health care research. Fam Pract. 2008;25(2):105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee ML, Yano EM, Wang M, et al. What patient population does visit-based sampling in primary care settings represent? Med Care. 2002;40(9):761–770.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamstrup-Larsen ND, Broholm-Jørgensen M, Larsen LB, et al. Using general practitioners to recruit individuals with low socioeconomic position to preventive health checks is feasible: a cross sectional study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2019;37(3):294–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsen TN, Nohr EA, Frydenberg M. Selection by socioeconomic factors into the Danish National Birth Cohort. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(5):349–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva Junior SH, Santos SM, Coeli CM, et al. Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Cad Saude Publica. 2015;31(11):2259–2274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almeida L, Kashdan TB, Nunes T, et al. Who volunteers for phase I clinical trials? Influences of anxiety, social anxiety and depressive symptoms on self-selection and the reporting of adverse events. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64(6):575–582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ertmann RK, Nicolaisdottir DR, Kragstrup J, et al. Physical discomfort in early pregnancy and postpartum depressive symptoms. Nord J Psychiatry. 2019;73(3):200–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickie IB, Fogarty AS, Davenport TA, et al. Responding to experiences of young people with common mental health problems attending Australian general practice. Med J Aust. 2007;187(S7):S47–S52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theil H. On the estimation of relationships involving qualitative variables. Am J Sociol. 1970;76: 103–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. 2nd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman LA, Kruskal W. Measures of association for cross classifications. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1979.
   Google Scholar
• Stang A. Nonresponse research – an underdeveloped field in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2003;18(10):929–931.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thygesen L. The register-based system of demographic and social statistics in Denmark. Stat J UN Econ Comm Eur. 1995;12(1):49–55.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ertmann RK, Nicolaisdottir DR, Kragstrup J, et al. Sleep complaints in early pregnancy. A cross-sectional study among women attending prenatal care in general practice. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutterodt MC, Kahler P, Kragstrup J, et al. Examining to what extent pregnancy-related physical symptoms worry women in the first trimester of pregnancy: a cross-sectional study in general practice. BJGP Open. 2019;3(4):bjgpopen19X101674.
   Google Scholar
• Yallop JJ, McAvoy BR, Croucher JL, et al.; CH@ Study Group. Primary health care research – essential but disadvantaged. Med J Aust. 2006;185(2):118–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grava-Gubins I, Scott S. Effects of various methodologic strategies: survey response rates among Canadian physicians and physicians-in-training. Can Fam Physician. 2008;54(10):1424–1430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodaty H, Gibson LH, Waine ML, et al. Research in general practice: a survey of incentives and disincentives for research participation. Ment Health Fam Med. 2013;10(3):163–173.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jones KM, Dixon ME, Dixon JB. General practice research – does gender affect the decision to participate? Aust Fam Physician. 2012;41(6):419–423.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saust LT, Bjerrum L, Siersma V, et al. Quality assessment in general practice: diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of acute respiratory tract infections. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2018;36(4):372–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster JM, Sawyer SM, Smith L, et al. Barriers and facilitators to patient recruitment to a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care: lessons for future trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson MK, Pirkis J, Pfaff JJ, et al. Recruiting and retaining GPs and patients in intervention studies: the DEPS-GP project as a case study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkinson A, Jorm L, Douglas KA, et al. Recruiting general practitioners for surveys: reflections on the difficulties and some lessons learned. Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(2):254–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fransen GA, van Marrewijk CJ, Mujakovic S, et al. Pragmatic trials in primary care. Methodological challenges and solutions demonstrated by the DIAMOND-study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peto V, Coulter A, Bond A. Factors affecting general practitioners' recruitment of patients into a prospective study. Fam Pract. 1993;10(2):207–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl A, Wright S, Gamble G, et al. Randomised trials in general practice – a New Zealand experience in recruitment. N Z Med J. 2003;116(1186):U681.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Templeton L, Deehan A, Taylor C, et al. Surveying general practitioners: does a low response rate matter? Br J Gen Pract. 1997;47(415):91–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eide TB, Straand J, Bjorkelund C, et al. Differences in medical services in Nordic general practice: a comparative survey from the QUALICOPC study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2017;35(2):153–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran AT, Bakke A, Berg TJ, et al. Are general practitioners characteristics associated with the quality of type 2 diabetes care in general practice? Results from the Norwegian ROSA4 study from 2014. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2018;36(2):170–179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JA. Structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15(5):615–625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar