TY - JOUR
T1 - Impacts of study design on sample size, participation bias, and outcome measurement
T2 - A case study from bicycling research
AU - Branion-Calles, Michael
AU - Winters, Meghan
AU - Nelson, Trisalyn
AU - de Nazelle, Audrey
AU - Panis, Luc Int
AU - Avila-Palencia, Ione
AU - Anaya-Boig, Esther
AU - Rojas-Rueda, David
AU - Dons, Evi
AU - Götschi, Thomas
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019
PY - 2019/12
Y1 - 2019/12
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Bias
KW - Bicycling
KW - Cross-sectional
KW - Exposure
KW - Longitudinal
KW - Study design
KW - Survey participation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072270695&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072270695&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jth.2019.100651
DO - 10.1016/j.jth.2019.100651
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85072270695
SN - 2214-1405
VL - 15
JO - Journal of Transport and Health
JF - Journal of Transport and Health
M1 - 100651
ER -