Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLivingston, P. M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, S. E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMcCarty, C. A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, H. R.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-22T09:04:46Z
dc.date.available2014-05-22T09:04:46Z
dc.date.issued1997en_US
dc.date.submitted2006-11-22en_US
dc.identifier.citationLivingston, P. M., Lee, S. E., McCarty, C. A., & Taylor, H. R. (1997). A comparison of participants with non-participants in a population-based epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 4(2), 73-81.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/33442
dc.descriptionPublisher’s permission requested and denied.en_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: Adequate participation in population-based studies is essential to ensure that the sample is representative of the population under investigation. Participants may differ from non-participants on important variables such as age, sex, socioeconomic status, and general health factors. The Melbourne Visual Impairment Project (Melbourne VIP) is a population-based study designed to increase understanding of the prevalence and severity of common ocular disorders affecting people 40 years of age and over. Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the potential for any non-response bias by comparing data from participants and non-participants of the Melbourne VIP. Methods: Specific demographic and general variables were compared between the two groups. The variables included age, sex, education level, and social status. The reason for non-attendance was also recorded. Results: A total of 3271 (83%) eligible residents from the 9 sample areas were screened; 46% males and 54% females. Language spoken at home was significantly associated with participation. Residents whose main language at home was not English were less likely to attend the screening centre. (OR: 0.60; CI: 0.44-0.81). The main reasons given for nonattendance by eligible residents were lack of interest (6%), too busy to attend (4%), personal illness (2%), and attend own eye specialist (2%). Conclusion: We believe these results will not impact significantly on the interpretation of gender and age-specific data from the Melbourne VIP.en_US
dc.formatapplication/pdfen_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherAeolus Pressen_US
dc.subjectCERAen_US
dc.subjectophthalmologyen_US
dc.subjectCentre for Eye Research Australiaen_US
dc.subjecteye researchen_US
dc.subjectvisionen_US
dc.subjectvisual healthen_US
dc.subjectvisual impairmenten_US
dc.subjectpopulation-based studyen_US
dc.subjectepidemiologyen_US
dc.subjectparticipationen_US
dc.subjectbiasen_US
dc.titleA comparison of participants with non-participants in a population-based epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Projecten_US
dc.typeJournal (Paginated)en_US
melbourne.peerreviewPeer Revieweden_US
melbourne.affiliationThe University of Melbourneen_US
melbourne.affiliation.departmentMedicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences: Centre for Eye Research Australiaen_US
melbourne.affiliation.departmentSchool of Medicine: Ophthalmologyen_US
melbourne.publication.statusPublisheden_US
melbourne.source.titleOphthalmic Epidemiologyen_US
melbourne.source.volume4en_US
melbourne.source.issue2en_US
melbourne.source.pages73-81en_US
melbourne.elementsidNA
melbourne.contributor.authorMcCarty, Catherine
melbourne.contributor.authorTaylor, Hugh
melbourne.accessrightsThis item is currently not available from this repository


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record