Premium
Nonresponse bias in a national study of dentists' infection control practices and attitudes related to HIV
Author(s) -
McCarthy Gillian M.,
MacDonald John K.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
community dentistry and oral epidemiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.061
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1600-0528
pISSN - 0301-5661
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00946.x
Subject(s) - medicine , logistic regression , human immunodeficiency virus (hiv) , demography , non response bias , family medicine , sociology , pathology
The aim was to investigate late response and nonresponse bias in a survey related to HIV and infection control. Questionnaires with ID numbers were mailed to a stratified random sample of dentists in Canada with additional mailings 4 and 7 weeks later ( n =6444). We compared responses received after <4 weeks, 4–7 weeks, >7 weeks. Extrapolation was used to estimate nonresponse bias. Univariate analyses showed significant differences between responses received <4 weeks after initial mailing and those received later for items on sociodemographics, knowledge, infection control practices and attitudes: late responders were more likely to report that they would refuse to treat any patients with HIV ( P <0.01). Multiple logistic regression indicated that the best predictors of responses received ≥4 weeks were disagreement that HBV is more infectious than HIV (OR=1.7); unwillingness to attend a dentist who treats HIV/AIDS patients (OR=1.3); incorrect perception of the risk of HIV infection after an HIV‐contaminated needlestick injury (OR =1.2): and sometimes or never heat‐sterilizing handpieces after each patient (OR=1.2). Extrapolation indicated that the percentage of all respondents who reported refusal to treat (15.2%) would have been 17.1% if a 100% response rate had been obtained. We found significant evidence of late response and nonresponse bias primarily in knowledge and fears related to HIV infectivity; however, the impact on the final results was small and we concluded that additional follow‐up to improve response rates would not be worthwhile.