title: [The problem of response in epidemiologic studies in Germany (Part II)].
abstract: The first part of this paper introduced various definitions of response and discussed their significance in the context of different study types. This second part addresses incentives as a method to increase response and evaluates the impact of non response or delayed response on the validity of the study results. Recruitment aims at minimising the proportion of refusal. To achieve this, incentives can be used and potential participants can be contacted in a sequence of increasing intensity. The effectiveness of different incentives was investigated within the pretest of the German survey on children and adolescents by the Robert Koch Institute. A low response is often interpreted in terms of non-response bias. This assumption, however, is as incorrect as would be opposite conclusion, that a high response guarantees valid results. Any study of the influence of nonresponse requires information on non-responders. The comparison between early and late responders as an indirect method to evaluate systematic differences between participants and non-participants by wave analysis is demonstrated within the Northern Germany Leukaemia and Lymphoma study (NLL). The German guidelines for Good Epidemiologic Practice recommend to solicit a minimum of information on the principal hypotheses of a study from non-participants. The example of a population-based health survey (Cooperative Health Research in the Region of Augsburg, KORA) illustrates how information on non-responders within a quantitative non-responder analysis can be achieved and used for the estimation of prevalences. Recommendations how to deal with the response in epidemiological studies in Germany are suggested.
authors.affiliation: Institut für Community Medicine, Abt. VC, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität Greifswalt. Wolfgang.Hoffmann@uni-greifswald.de
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Hoffmann
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Terschüren
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Holle
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Kamtsiuris
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Bergmann
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Kroke
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sauer
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Stang
authors.forename: U
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Latza
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D015991:Epidemiologic Measurements; D004812:Epidemiologic Methods; D005260:Female; D005858:Germany / Q000453:epidemiology; D019983:Guideline Adherence; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007938:Leukemia / Q000453:epidemiology*; D008223:Lymphoma / Q000453:epidemiology*; D008297:Male; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D018401:Sample Size; D015983:Selection Bias; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
vernacular_title: Zum Problem der Response in epidemiologischen Studien in Deutschland (Teil II).