We compare the performance of
multiple respondent-driven sampling estimators under different sample
recruitment conditions in hidden populations of female sex workers in the midst
of China’s ongoing epidemic of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We first
examine empirically calibrated simulations grounded in survey data to evaluate
the relative performance of each estimator under ideal sampling conditions
consistent with respondent-driven sampling assumptions and under conditions
that mimic observed respondent-driven sampling recruitment processes. One
estimator, which incorporates respondents’ reports on their network of
contacts, substantially out-performs the others under all conditions. We then
apply the estimators to empirical samples of female sex workers collected in
two Chinese cities which include unique data on respondents’ networks. These
empirical results are consistent with the simulation results, suggesting that
traditional respondent-driven sampling estimators overestimate the proportion
of female sex workers working in low tiers of sex work and are likely to
overstate the STI risk profiles of these populations.
Distributions of estimates of
proportion in low tiers of sex work using the RDS2-VH estimator, by seeding and
recruitment scenario. Notes: The population proportion is computed from the largest
connected component of the simulated population network and is shown with a dashed
vertical line. Population social network is priorities for local AIDS control
efforts survey data source with venue size adjustments and weak geographic
distribution of ties assumption (see eAppendix for description of population social networks). Distributions
are plotted by kernel density estimation.
Full article
at: http://goo.gl/wxNnft
By: Ashton M. Verdery,a,* M. Giovanna Merli,b James Moody,c,d Jeffrey Smith,e and Jacob C. Fisherf
aDepartment of Sociology and Criminology,
Population Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, Pennsylvania
bDuke Population Research Institute,
Sanford School of Public Policy, Department of Sociology, and Duke Global
Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC
cDuke Population Research Institute,
Department of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, NC
dKing Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
eDepartment of Sociology, University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
fDepartment of Sociology, Duke University,
Durham, NC
*Corresponding Author. Department of Sociology
and Criminology, 211 Oswald Tower, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802, Email: ude.usp@yredrev


No comments:
Post a Comment