4.0 Article

The first KiGGS follow-up (KiGGS Wave 1). Study conduct, sample design, and response

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00103-014-1973-9

关键词

Health survey; Children and adolescents; Sample; Response; Weighting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS) is part of the health monitoring system of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). Following the KiGGS baseline study (2003 -aEuro parts per thousand 06), which comprised interviews and physical examinations of 0- to 17-year-old participants, KiGGS Wave 1 (2009 -aEuro parts per thousand 2012) was carried out as a telephone-based survey. In addition to providing longitudinal data, a second essential aim of KiGGS is to regularly provide population-based cross-sectional data on the health situation of children and adolescents aged 0-17 years living in Germany. Therefore, the study population of KiGGS Wave 1 consists of re-invited participants from the baseline study (KiGGS cohort), supplemented by newly invited children aged 0-6 years. The newly invited participants were randomly chosen from local population registries in the 167 baseline sample points. This method was chosen to supplement the sample with younger age groups. This article focuses on the age groups from 0 to 17 years, which are relevant for prevalence estimations among children and adolescents. In total 12,368 children and adolescents took part; among them 4,455 newly invited and 7,913 re-invited participants (response 38.8 and 72.9 %, respectively). A comparison of the net sample with the resident German population (0-17 years) regarding particular population characteristics and an analysis of the relationship between the re-participation rate and certain characteristics collected in the baseline study (7-17 years) suggest a mostly unbiased sample. To account for certain aspects of the population and nonresponse, cross-sectional and trend analyses were partially corrected by weighting factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据