Logo image
Back
Data completeness and quality in a community-based and participatory epidemiologic study
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Data completeness and quality in a community-based and participatory epidemiologic study

Leah Schinasi, Rachel Avery Horton and Steve Wing
Progress in community health partnerships, v 3(2), pp 179-190
01 Jan 2009
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.0.0065
PMID: 20208265
url
https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc5800504View
Accepted (AM)Open Access (License Unspecified),  Open

Abstract

BACKGROUNDThe principles of community-based participatory (CBPR) research challenge traditional scientific standards of objectivity and neutrality. Little work has been done to evaluate the quality of data obtained from CBPR studies.OBJECTIVESWe examined factors associated with the completeness and quality of data that participants collected for the Community Health Effects of Industrial Hog Operations (CHEIHO) study, a community-based, participatory, longitudinal, epidemiologic investigation.METHODSTwice daily for 2 weeks, 101 eastern North Carolina residents collected data on odor from industrialized hog operations, physical health, and mood. Data collected at a single point in time constitute a record. For each record, participant responses were classified as error free or not and missing or not. We used mixed models to quantify associations between errors or missing values and time of day, odor rating, week-in-participation, and presence of a person to assist with data collection.RESULTSParticipants collected data out of order in 2% of 2,949 total records. On average, individual variables were incomplete in 2% of records. Errors and missing data were most common for lung function measurements. Missing data for lung function and blood pressure were less common after the first week of participation (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.84). Saliva samples were more frequently missing when participants reported odor than when they did not (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.97-2.59). For women, the odds that yes/no variables were missing in week 2 records were higher relative to week 1 (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.12).CONCLUSIONSCommunity members collected relatively complete and consistent data. Better training in use of mechanical devices and more frequent input from researchers could help to improve data quality in CBPR studies.

Metrics

15 Record Views

Details

Logo image