Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Respondent driven sampling—where we are and where should we be going?
  1. Richard G White1,
  2. Amy Lansky2,
  3. Sharad Goel3,
  4. David Wilson4,
  5. Wolfgang Hladik5,
  6. Avi Hakim5,
  7. Simon DW Frost6
  1. 1Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  2. 2Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  3. 3Microsoft Research, New York, USA
  4. 4World Bank, USA
  5. 5Division of Global HIV/AIDS, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  6. 6Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Richard White, Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases and Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK; richard.white{at}lshtm.ac.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS) is a novel variant of link tracing sampling that has primarily been used to estimate the characteristics of hard-to-reach groups, such as the HIV prevalence of drug users.1 ‘Seeds’ are selected by convenience from a population of interest (target population) and given coupons. Seeds then use these coupons to recruit other people, who themselves become recruiters. Recruits are given compensation, usually money, for taking part in the survey and also an incentive for recruiting others. This process continues in recruitment ‘waves’ until the survey is stopped. Estimation methods are then applied to account for the biased recruitment, for example, the presumed over-recruitment of people with more acquaintances, in an attempt to generate estimates for the underlying population. RDS has quickly become popular and relied on by major public health organisations, including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Family Health International, chiefly because it is often found to be an efficient method of recruitment in hard-to-reach groups, but also because of the availability of custom written software incorporating inference methods that are designed to generate estimates that are representative of the wider population of interest, despite the biased sampling.

As demonstrated by RDS's popularity,1 there was a clear need for new methods of data collection on hard-to-reach groups. However, RDS has not been without its critics. Its reliance on the target population for recruitment introduced ethicalw1 and sampling concerns.w2 If RDS estimates are overly biased or the variance is unacceptably high, then RDS will be little more than another method of convenience sampling. If these errors can be minimised however, then RDS has the potential to become a very useful survey methodology.

In this editorial we highlight that ‘RDS’ includes both data collection and statistical inference methods, discuss the limitations …

View Full Text

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.