首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Research Methodology >Aiming for a representative sample: Simulating random versus purposive strategies for hospital selection
【24h】

Aiming for a representative sample: Simulating random versus purposive strategies for hospital selection

机译:瞄准代表性样本:模拟随机和目的性策略选择医院

获取原文
       

摘要

Background A ubiquitous issue in research is that of selecting a representative sample from the study population. While random sampling strategies are the gold standard, in practice, random sampling of participants is not always feasible nor necessarily the optimal choice. In our case, a selection must be made of 12 hospitals (out of 89 Dutch hospitals in total). With this selection of 12 hospitals, it should be possible to estimate blood use in the remaining hospitals as well. In this paper, we evaluate both random and purposive strategies for the case of estimating blood use in Dutch hospitals. Methods Available population-wide data on hospital blood use and number of hospital beds are used to simulate five sampling strategies: (1) select only the largest hospitals, (2) select the largest and the smallest hospitals (‘maximum variation’), (3) select hospitals randomly, (4) select hospitals from as many different geographic regions as possible, (5) select hospitals from only two regions. Simulations of each strategy result in different selections of hospitals, that are each used to estimate blood use in the remaining hospitals. The estimates are compared to the actual population values; the subsequent prediction errors are used to indicate the quality of the sampling strategy. Results The strategy leading to the lowest prediction error in the case study was maximum variation sampling, followed by random, regional variation and two-region sampling, with sampling the largest hospitals resulting in the worst performance. Maximum variation sampling led to a hospital level prediction error of 15?%, whereas random sampling led to a prediction error of 19?% (95?% CI 17?%-26?%). While lowering the sample size reduced the differences between maximum variation and the random strategies, increasing sample size to n?=?18 did not change the ranking of the strategies and led to only slightly better predictions. Conclusions The optimal strategy for estimating blood use was maximum variation sampling. When proxy data are available, it is possible to evaluate random and purposive sampling strategies using simulations before the start of the study. The results enable researchers to make a more educated choice of an appropriate sampling strategy.
机译:背景技术研究中普遍存在的问题是从研究人群中选择代表性样本。尽管随机抽样策略是黄金标准,但实际上,参与者的随机抽样并不总是可行的,也不一定是最佳选择。在我们的案例中,必须选择12家医院(总共89家荷兰医院)。通过选择这12家医院,应该也可以估计其余医院的血液使用情况。在本文中,我们评估了荷兰医院估计用血情况的随机策略和目的策略。方法使用有关医院血液使用和病床数量的全民可用数据来模拟五种采样策略:(1)仅选择最大的医院,(2)选择最大和最小的医院(``最大差异''),( 3)随机选择医院,(4)从尽可能多的不同地理区域中选择医院,(5)仅从两个区域中选择医院。每种策略的模拟导致选择不同的医院,每种医院都用于估计其余医院的血液使用量。将估计数与实际人口值进行比较;随后的预测误差用于指示采样策略的质量。结果本案例中导致最低预测误差的策略是最大变异抽样,然后是随机,区域变异和两区域抽样,对最大的医院进行抽样会导致最差的绩效。最大变异采样导致医院水平的预测误差为15%,而随机采样导致预测误差为19%(95%CI 17%-26%)。虽然减小样本量减小了最大变异与随机策略之间的差异,但将样本量增加到n?=?18并不会改变策略的排名,只会导致更好的预测。结论估计用血量的最佳策略是最大变异采样。当代理数据可用时,可以在研究开始之前使用模拟评估随机和有目的的抽样策略。结果使研究人员能够对适当的采样策略做出更有根据的选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号