FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2136899260> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2136899260 endingPage "214" @default.
• W2136899260 startingPage "205" @default.
• W2136899260 abstract "Background. Sampling for primary care research must strike a balance between efficiency and external validity. For most conditions, even a large population sample will yield a small number of cases, yet other sampling techniques risk problems with extrapolation of findings. Objective. To compare the efficiency and external validity of two sampling methods for both an intervention study and epidemiological research in primary care—a convenience sample and a general population sample—comparing the response and follow-up rates, the demographic and clinical characteristics of each sample, and calculating the ‘number needed to sample’ (NNS) for a hypothetical randomized controlled trial. Methods. In 1996, we selected two random samples of adults from 29 general practices in Grampian, for an epidemiological study of chronic pain. One sample of 4175 was identified by an electronic questionnaire that listed patients receiving regular analgesic prescriptions—the ‘repeat prescription sample’. The other sample of 5036 was identified from all patients on practice lists—the ‘general population sample’. Questionnaires, including demographic, pain and general health measures, were sent to all. A similar follow-up questionnaire was sent in 2000 to all those agreeing to participate in further research. We identified a potential group of subjects for a hypothetical trial in primary care based on a recently published trial (those aged 25–64, with severe chronic back pain, willing to participate in further research). Results. The repeat prescription sample produced better response rates than the general sample overall (86% compared with 82%, P < 0.001), from both genders and from the oldest and youngest age groups. The NNS using convenience sampling was 10 for each member of the final potential trial sample, compared with 55 using general population sampling. There were important differences between the samples in age, marital and employment status, social class and educational level. However, among the potential trial sample, there were no demographic differences. Those from the repeat prescription sample had poorer indices than the general population sample in all pain and health measures. Conclusions. The repeat prescription sampling method was approximately five times more efficient than the general population method. However demographic and clinical differences in the repeat prescription sample might hamper extrapolation of findings to the general population, particularly in an epidemiological study, and demonstrate that simple comparison with age and gender of the target population is insufficient." @default.
• W2136899260 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2136899260 creator A5002942437 @default.
• W2136899260 creator A5023305042 @default.
• W2136899260 creator A5072544562 @default.
• W2136899260 creator A5081026738 @default.
• W2136899260 creator A5091400970 @default.
• W2136899260 date "2005-01-17" @default.
• W2136899260 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2136899260 title "The 'number needed to sample' in primary care research. Comparison of two primary care sampling frames for chronic back pain" @default.
• W2136899260 cites W1493773294 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W1600562067 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W1657562951 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W1805471189 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W1966128258 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W1975688428 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W1992708231 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2007558542 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2007928389 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2013185547 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2015436382 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2025314877 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2027927047 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2057937065 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2065656247 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2082970080 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2090242336 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2092579251 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2096800295 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2102368782 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2103637716 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2109631892 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2112697885 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2125070112 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2127212431 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2132540873 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2148924145 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2411049529 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2504910024 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2800464311 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W2979780924 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W3023735680 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W3041284877 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W41034719 @default.
• W2136899260 cites W628792916 @default.
• W2136899260 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmi009" @default.
• W2136899260 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15722397" @default.
• W2136899260 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2136899260 type Work @default.
• W2136899260 sameAs 2136899260 @default.
• W2136899260 citedByCount "17" @default.
• W2136899260 countsByYear W21368992602013 @default.
• W2136899260 countsByYear W21368992602014 @default.
• W2136899260 countsByYear W21368992602016 @default.
• W2136899260 countsByYear W21368992602019 @default.
• W2136899260 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2136899260 hasAuthorship W2136899260A5002942437 @default.
• W2136899260 hasAuthorship W2136899260A5023305042 @default.
• W2136899260 hasAuthorship W2136899260A5072544562 @default.
• W2136899260 hasAuthorship W2136899260A5081026738 @default.
• W2136899260 hasAuthorship W2136899260A5091400970 @default.
• W2136899260 hasBestOaLocation W21368992601 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C107130276 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C129848803 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C174106493 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C198531522 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C2426938 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C2781118164 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C43617362 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C105795698 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C107130276 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C126322002 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C129848803 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C159110408 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C168563851 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C174106493 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C185592680 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C1862650 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C198531522 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C2426938 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C2781118164 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C2908647359 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C33923547 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C43617362 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C512399662 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C71924100 @default.
• W2136899260 hasConceptScore W2136899260C99454951 @default.

• next