Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Uncovering Survivorship Bias in Longitudinal Mental Health Surveys
Mark É. Czeisler; Joshua F. Wiley; Charles A. Czeisler; Shantha M.W. Rajaratnam; Mark E. Howard.
Afiliação
  • Mark É. Czeisler; Monash University
  • Joshua F. Wiley; Monash University
  • Charles A. Czeisler; Brigham and Women's Hospital
  • Shantha M.W. Rajaratnam; Monash University
  • Mark E. Howard; Austin Health
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21250694
ABSTRACT
AimsMarkedly elevated adverse mental health symptoms were widely observed early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Unlike the U.S., where cross-sectional data indicate anxiety and depression symptoms have remained elevated, such symptoms reportedly declined in the U.K., according to analysis of repeated measures from a largescale longitudinal study. However, nearly 40% of U.K. respondents (those who did not complete multiple follow-up surveys) were excluded from analysis, suggesting that survivorship bias might partially explain this discrepancy. We therefore sought to assess survivorship bias among participants in our longitudinal survey study as part of The COVID-19 Outbreak Public Evaluation (COPE) Initiative. MethodsSurvivorship bias was assessed 4,039 U.S. respondents who completed surveys including the assessment of mental health as part of The COPE Initiative in April 2020 and were invited to complete follow-up surveys. Participants completed validated screening instruments for symptoms of anxiety, depression, and insomnia. Survivorship bias was assessed for (1) demographic differences in follow-up survey participation, (2) differences in initial adverse mental health symptom prevalences adjusted for demographic factors, and (3) differences in follow-up survey participation based on mental health experiences adjusted for demographic factors. ResultsAdjusting for demographics, individuals who completed only one or two out of four surveys had higher prevalences of anxiety and depression symptoms in April 2020 (e.g., one-survey versus four-survey, anxiety symptoms, adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.55, P=0.0045; depression symptoms, aPR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17-1.75, P=0.00052). Moreover, individuals who experienced incident anxiety or depression symptoms had higher odds of not completing follow-up surveys (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.68, 95% CI 1.22-2.31, P=0.0015, aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.15-2.12, P=0.0046, respectively). ConclusionsOur findings revealed significant survivorship bias among longitudinal survey respondents, indicating that restricting analytic samples to only respondents who provide repeated assessments in longitudinal survey studies could lead to overly optimistic interpretations of mental health trends over time. Cross-sectional or planned missing data designs may provide more accurate estimates of population-level adverse mental health symptom prevalences than longitudinal surveys.
Licença
cc_by_nd
Texto completo: Disponível Coleções: Preprints Base de dados: medRxiv Tipo de estudo: Cohort_studies / Experimental_studies / Estudo observacional / Estudo prognóstico / Pesquisa qualitativa / Rct Idioma: Inglês Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Preprint
Texto completo: Disponível Coleções: Preprints Base de dados: medRxiv Tipo de estudo: Cohort_studies / Experimental_studies / Estudo observacional / Estudo prognóstico / Pesquisa qualitativa / Rct Idioma: Inglês Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Preprint
...