Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Research Notes and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Sex-differences in reasons for non-participation at recruitment: Geelong Osteoporosis Study

Shikha Markanday1, Sharon L Brennan234, Haslinda Gould23 and Julie A Pasco123*

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Medicine, Barwon Health, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia

2 Epidemiology Unit for Musculoskeletal and Metabolic Disorders (Epi-UMMD), School of Medicine, Deakin University, PO Box 281, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia

3 Department of Medicine, NorthWest Academic Centre, The University of Melbourne, Sunshine Hospital, 176 Furlong Road, St Albans, VIC, 3021, Australia

4 Australian Institute for Musculo-Skeletal Science, NorthWest Academic Centre, The University of Melbourne, St Albans, VIC, 3021, Australia

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Research Notes 2013, 6:104  doi:10.1186/1756-0500-6-104

Published: 18 March 2013

Abstract

Background

Understanding reasons for non-participation in health studies can help guide recruitment strategies and inform researchers about potential sources of bias in their study sample. Whilst there is a paucity of literature regarding this issue, it remains highly plausible that men and women may have varied reasons for declining an invitation to participate in research. We aimed to investigate sex-differences in the reasons for non-participation at baseline of the Geelong Osteoporosis Study (GOS).

Methods

The GOS, a prospective cohort study, randomly recruited men and women aged 20 years and over from a region in south-eastern Australia using Commonwealth electoral rolls (2001–06 and 1993–97, respectively). Reasons for non-participation (n=1,200) were documented during the two recruitment periods. We used the Pearson’s chi squared test to explore differences in the reasons for non-participation between men and women.

Results

Non-participation in the male cohort was greater than in the female cohort (32.9% vs. 22.9%; p<0.001). Overall, there were sex-differences in the reasons provided for non-participation (p<0.001); apparent differences related to time constraints (men 26.3% vs. women 10.4%), frailty/inability to cope with or understand the study (men 18.7% vs. women 30.6%), and reluctance over medical testing (men 1.1% vs women 9.9%). No sex-differences were observed for non-participation related to personal reason/disinterest, and language- or travel-related reasons.

Conclusions

Improving participation rates in epidemiological studies may require different recruitment strategies for men and women in order to address sex-specific concerns about participating in research.

Keywords:
Non-participation; Recruitment; Sex-differences; Population-based; Cohort study; Epidemiology