Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Nov;83(6 Suppl):i29-38.
doi: 10.1007/s11524-006-9100-3.

Recruiting injection drug users: a three-site comparison of results and experiences with respondent-driven and targeted sampling procedures

William T Robinson  1 , Jan M H Risser, Shanell McGoy, Adam B Becker, Hafeez Rehman, Mary Jefferson, Vivian Griffin, Marcia Wolverton, Stephanie Tortu
Affiliations

Recruiting injection drug users: a three-site comparison of results and experiences with respondent-driven and targeted sampling procedures

William T Robinson et al. J Urban Health. 2006 Nov.

Abstract

Several recent studies have utilized respondent-driven sampling (RDS) methods to survey hidden populations such as commercial sex-workers, men who have sex with men (MSM) and injection drug users (IDU). Few studies, however, have provided a direct comparison between RDS and other more traditional sampling methods such as venue-based, targeted or time/space sampling. The current study sampled injection drug users in three U.S. cities using RDS and targeted sampling (TS) methods and compared their effectiveness in terms of recruitment efficiency, logistics, and sample demographics. Both methods performed satisfactorily. The targeted method required more staff time per-recruited respondent and had a lower proportion of screened respondents who were eligible than RDS, while RDS respondents were offered higher incentives for participation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2004. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005; Vol. 16.
    1. {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.1097/01.aids.0000172879.20628.e1', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aids.0000172879.20628.e1'}, {'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '15930843', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15930843/'}]}
    2. Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathorn D. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. AIDS. 2005;19(2):S67–S72. - PubMed
    1. {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.1525/sp.1989.36.4.03a00070', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1989.36.4.03a00070'}]}
    2. Watters JK, Biernacki P. Targeted sampling: options for the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1989;36(4):416–430.
    1. {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '12555695', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12555695/'}]}
    2. Semaan S, Lauby J, Liebman J. Street and network sampling in evaluation studies of HIV risk-reduction interventions. AIDS Rev. 2002;4:213–223. - PubMed
    1. None
    2. Coleman JS. Relational analysis: the study of social organization with survey methods. Human Organ. 1959;17:28–36.

Publication types