Re-engaging with Survey Non-respondents: The BHPS, SOEP and HILDA Survey Experience

Previous research into the correlates and determinants of non-response in longitudinal surveys has focused exclusively on why it is that respondents at one survey wave choose not to participate at future waves. This is very understandable if non-response is always an absorbing state, but in many longitudinal surveys, and certainly most household panels, this is not the case. Indeed, in these surveys it is normal practice to attempt to make contact with many non-respondents at the next wave. This study differs from previous research by examining the process of re-engagement with previous wave non-respondents. Drawing on data from three national household panels it is found that the re-engagement decision is indeed distinctly different from the decision about continued participation. Further, these differences have clear implications for the way panel surveys should be administered given the desire to enhance overall response rates.Household panel surveys, survey response, attrition

Re-engaging with Survey Non-respondents: The BHPS, SOEP and HILDA Survey Experience

Previous research into the correlates and determinants of non-response in longitudinal surveys has focused exclusively on why it is that respondents at one survey wave choose not to participate at future waves. This is very understandable if non-response is always an absorbing state, but in many longitudinal surveys, and certainly most household panels, this is not the case. Indeed, in these surveys it is normal practice to attempt to make contact with many non-respondents at the next wave. This study differs from previous research by examining the process of re-engagement with previous wave non-respondents. Drawing on data from three national household panels it is found that the re-engagement decision is indeed distinctly different from the decision about continued participation. Further, these differences have clear implications for the way panel surveys should be administered given the desire to enhance overall response rates.Household panel surveys, survey response, attrition

Household Survey Panels: How Much Do Following Rules Affect Sample Size?

In household panels, typically all household members are surveyed. Because household composition changes over time, so-called following rules are implemented to decide whether to continue surveying household members who leave the household (e.g. former spouses/partners, grown children) in subsequent waves. Following rules have been largely ignored in the literature leaving panel designers unaware of the breadth of their options and forcing them to makead hoc decisions. In particular, to what extent various following rules affect sample size over time is unknown. From an operational point of view such knowledge is important because sample size greatly affects costs. Moreover, the decisionof whom to follow has irreversible consequences as finding household members who moved out years earlier is very difficult. We find that household survey panels implement a wide variety of following rules but their effect on sample size is relatively limited. Even after 25 years, the rule "follow only wave 1 respondents" still captures 85% of the respondents of the rule "follow everyone who can be traced back to a wave 1 household through living arrangements". Almost all of the remaining 15% live in households of children of wave 1 respondents who have grown up (5%) and in households of former spouses/partners (10%). Unless attrition is low, there is no danger of an ever expanding panel because even wide following rules do not typically exceed attrition.Survey panels, Survey methodology

Cooking times and temperatures for safe consumption of Louisiana blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus)

While all seafood has the potential of being associated with foodborne illness, Louisiana blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) are exposed to Vibrio cholerae, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Vibrio vulnificus, Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella species in the estuarine habitat. This study was designed to determine the least amount of time and temperature needed to reduce or eliminate each of the aforementioned bacteria from a single Louisiana blue crab with either boiling or steaming heat treatments. Once the single crab heat treatment studies were completed, the bacteria that showed the greatest thermal resistance, Listeria monocytogenes, and the bacteria most associated with foodborne illness in Louisiana blue crabs, Vibrio parahaemolyticus were inoculated into a serving size of crabs and subjected to heat treatments. The results were based on the amount of bacterial log reduction of each heat treatment time point. Results of the heat treatment experiments were: boil one crab four minutes and cool one additional minute for an internal temperature of at least 79.5° C and a total cooking time of five minutes; steam one crab for five minutes cool two additional minutes for an internal temperature of at least 57° C and a total cooking time of seven minutes; boil four crabs for 10 minutes and cool five additional minutes for an internal temperature of at least 85° C and a total cooking time of 15 minutes; steam four crabs for 15 minutes and cool five additional minutes to reach an internal temperature of at least 85° C with a total cooking time of 20 minutes

Chasing Hard-to-Get Cases in Panel Surveys: Is it Worth it?

In many population surveys, fieldwork effort tends to be disproportionately concentrated on a relatively small proportion of hard-to-get cases. This article examines whether this effort is justified within a panel survey setting. It considers three questions: (i) are hard-to-get cases that are interviewed different from other interviewed cases? (ii) do cases that require a lot of effort in one survey wave require a lot of effort in all waves? and (iii) can easy-to-get cases be re-weighted to eliminate biases arising from not interviewing hard-to-get cases? Using data from a large nationally representative household panel survey, we find that hard-to-get cases are distinctly different from easy-to-get cases, suggesting that failure to obtain interviews with them would likely introduce biases into the sample. Further, being hard-to-get is mostly not a persistent state, meaning these high cost cases are not high cost every year. Simulations confirm that removing hard-to-get cases introduces biases, and these biases lead to an understatement of the extent of change experienced by the population. However, we also find that under one of five fieldwork curtailment strategies considered, the bias in population estimates that would arise if the hard-to-get cases were not pursued can be corrected by applying weights. Nevertheless, this conclusion only applies to the curtailment strategy involving the smallest decline in sample size. Biases associated with curtailment strategies involving larger sample size reductions, and hence greatest cost savings, are not so easily corrected

Lessons Learned: Strengthening Medicaid to Address Health and Economic Emergencies

COVID-19 has disproportionately harmed low-income people, especially Black and Latino populations, seniors, and people with disabilities. Medicaid plays an essential role in providing coverage and access to care for these populations. As COVID-19 disrupted employment, earnings, and insurance coverage, Medicaid enrollment increased, in part because Congress offered states increased Medicaid funding in return for maintaining eligibility and enrollment for the duration of the public health emergency (PHE). At the same time, many states expanded eligibility and streamlined enrollment to assure that people could secure and keep coverage. Such policies resulted in more than 5.3 million more Americans having Medicaid coverage during 2020. However, increased demand for Medicaid during the pandemic’s economic downturn places pressure on state budgets. The secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Congress should work together to ensure that the Medicaid enhanced federal match and maintenance of effort requirements continue at least through early 2022 to protect coverage for low-income Americans and to help states weather the economic recovery. HHS should rescind all policies that create barriers to enrollment and access to care. State governments should continue to use temporary emergency authorities to expand eligibility and streamline application and enrollment processes and make them permanent when the PHE ends. Congress should either proceed with President Biden’s campaign plan for a federal public option to provide low-cost insurance coverage, particularly important for states that have not expanded Medicaid, or enact an increased federal match for a limited period of time to encourage opt-out states to implement Medicaid expansion. This paper was prepared as part of the COVID-19 Policy Playbook: Legal Recommendations for a Safer, More Equitable Future, a comprehensive report published by Public Health Law Watch in partnership with the de Beaumont Foundation and the American Public Health Association

Examining the feasibility of an economic analysis of dyadic developmental psychotherapy for children with maltreatment associated psychiatric problems in the United Kingdom

Background: Children with maltreatment associated psychiatric problems are at increased risk of developing behavioural or mental health disorders. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) was proposed as treatment for children with maltreatment histories in the USA, however, being new to the UK little is known of its effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. As part of an exploratory study, this paper explores the feasibility of undertaking economic analysis of DDP in the UK. Methods: Feasibility for economic analysis was determined by ensuring such analysis could meet key criteria for economic evaluation. Phone interviews were conducted with professionals (therapists trained and accredited or in the process of becoming accredited DDP practitioners). Three models were developed to represent alternative methods of DDP service delivery. Once appropriate comparators were determined, economic scenarios were constructed. Cost analyses were undertaken from a societal perspective. Finally, appropriate outcome measurement was explored through clinical opinion, literature and further discussions with clinical experts. Results: Three DDP models were constructed: DDP Full-Basic, DDP Home-Based and DDP Long-Term. Two potential comparator interventions were identified and defined as Consultation with Carers and Individual Psychotherapy. Costs of intervention completion per case were estimated to be: £6,700 (DDP Full-Basic), £7,100 (Consultations with Carers), £7,200 (DDP Home-Based), £11,400 (Individual Psychotherapy) and £14,500 (DDP Long-Term). None of the models of service delivery were found to currently measure effectiveness consistently. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was deemed an appropriate primary outcome measure, however, it does not cover all disorders DDP intends to treat and the SDQ is not a direct measure of health gain. Inclusion of quality of life measurement is required for comprehensive economic analysis. Conclusions: Economic analysis of DDP in the UK is feasible if vital next steps are taken to measure intervention outcomes consistently, ideally with a quality of life measurement. An economic analysis using the models constructed could determine the potential cost-effectiveness of DDP in the UK and identify the most efficient mode of service delivery

The feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

Background: Maltreated children have significant and complex problems which clinicians find difficult to diagnose and treat. Previous US pilot work suggests that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) may be effective; however, rigorous evidence from a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is lacking. The purpose of this study is to establish the feasibility of an RCT of DDP by exploring the ways that DDP is operating across different UK sites and the impacts of current practice on the potential set-up of an RCT. Methods: Qualitative methods (interviews, focus groups and teleconferences) were used to explore trial feasibility with therapists and service managers from teams implementing both DDP and possible control interventions. Data were analysed thematically and related to various aspects of trial design. Results: DDP was commonly regarded as having a particular congruence with the complexity of maltreatment-associated problems and a common operating model of DDP was evident across sites. A single control therapy was harder to establish, however, and it is likely to be a non-specific and context-dependent intervention/s offered within mainstream Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Because a ‘gold standard’ Treatment as Usual (TAU) does not currently exist, randomisation between DDP and TAU (CAMHS) therefore looks feasible and ethical. The nature of family change during DDP was regarded as multi-faceted, non-linear and relationship-based. Assessment tools need to be carefully considered in terms of their ability to capture change that covers both individual child and family-based functioning. Conclusions: An RCT of DDP is feasible and timely. This study has demonstrated widespread interest, support and engagement regarding an RCT and permissions have been gained from sites that have shown readiness to participate. As maltreated children are among the most vulnerable in society, and as there are currently no treatments with RCT evidence, such a trial would be a major advance in the field