Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #121563

Shanell L. McGoy, MPH¹, Billy Robinson, PhD², Jan Risser, PhD³, Adam Becker, PhD⁴, Hafeez U. Rehman, MD, MPH⁵, and Vivian Griffin, BS¹. (1) HIV/AIDS Surveillance, Michigan Department of Community Health, 1151 Taylor, Detroit, MI 48202, (2) HIV/AIDS Program, Louisiana Office of Public Health, 234 Loyola Ave: 5th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70112, 504-568-5200, brobinso@dhh.la.gov, (3) Epidemiology, University of Texas School of Public Health, 1200 Herman Pressler, RAS E 707, Houston, TX 77030, (4) Community Health Sciences Department, Tulane University SPHTM, 1440 Canal Street, Suite 2300, New Orleans, LA 70112, (5) Bureau of Epidemiology, Office of Surveillance and Public Health Preparedness, Houston Department of Health and Human Services, 8000 N Stadium Dr 4th floor, Houston, TX 77054

Injection Drug Users represent an important population in the study of HIV risk behaviors. Sampling this “hidden population” has been difficult; for the behaviors are illegal, stigmatized and illicit. This study compared and contrasted demographics, recruitment efficiency, and logistics of respondent driven sampling (RDS) and targeted sampling (TS) in three large metropolitan areas.

Over an eight-week period during the summer of 2004, three CDC-funded National HIV Behavioral Surveillance MSAs (Detroit, Houston, and New Orleans) conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility of recruiting at least 100 eligible (IDUs) with RDS and TS.

All sites nearly met the sample size for TS. One site did not meet the sample size for RDS. Both samples had demographic characteristics similar to local census and HIV surveillance data of IDUs. A higher proportion of respondents screened via RDS (95%) were found to be eligible IDUs than TS (47%). Even though those recruited through TS received incentives lower ($20) than those recruited through RDS ($26.68), more person-hours were required per successful interview recruited through TS (2 hours and 9 minutes) than RDS (1 hour and 13 minutes), which resulted in higher overall cost. Logistical concerns differed considerably between the methods and three sites.

RDS and TS proved effective in recruiting injection drug users in three MSAs. Although protocols were consistent across the three sites, city differences and available resources varied the implementation process. Implementation of RDS alongside TS allowed a direct comparison of the methods, and there are site-specific pros and cons for each method.

Learning Objectives: