首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Refusal Bias in the Estimation of HIV Prevalence
Authors:Wendy Janssens  Jacques van der Gaag  Tobias F. Rinke de Wit  Zlata Tanović
Affiliation:1. Amsterdam Institute for International Development; VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics; Tinbergen Institute, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2. Amsterdam Institute for International Development; University of Amsterdam; The Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC, 20036-2103, USA
3. Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development (AIGHD); Department of Global Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam; PharmAccess International, Pietersbergweg 17, 1105 BM, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4. Amsterdam Institute for International Development; VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract:
In 2007, UNAIDS corrected estimates of global HIV prevalence downward from 40 million to 33 million based on a methodological shift from sentinel surveillance to population-based surveys. Since then, population-based surveys are considered the gold standard for estimating HIV prevalence. However, prevalence rates based on representative surveys may be biased because of nonresponse. This article investigates one potential source of nonresponse bias: refusal to participate in the HIV test. We use the identity of randomly assigned interviewers to identify the participation effect and estimate HIV prevalence rates corrected for unobservable characteristics with a Heckman selection model. The analysis is based on a survey of 1,992 individuals in urban Namibia, which included an HIV test. We find that the bias resulting from refusal is not significant for the overall sample. However, a detailed analysis using kernel density estimates shows that the bias is substantial for the younger and the poorer population. Nonparticipants in these subsamples are estimated to be three times more likely to be HIV-positive than participants. The difference is particularly pronounced for women. Prevalence rates that ignore this selection effect may be seriously biased for specific target groups, leading to misallocation of resources for prevention and treatment.
Keywords:
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号