Display options
Share it on

JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2019 Mar 14;5(1):e12034. doi: 10.2196/12034.

Population Size Estimations Among Hidden Populations Using Respondent-Driven Sampling Surveys: Case Studies From Armenia.

JMIR public health and surveillance

Katherine R McLaughlin, Lisa G Johnston, Laura J Gamble, Trdat Grigoryan, Arshak Papoyan, Samvel Grigoryan

Affiliations

  1. Department of Statistics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States.
  2. 5% Initiative, Expertise France, Paris, France.
  3. National Center for AIDS Prevention, Yerevan, Armenia.

PMID: 30869650 PMCID: PMC6437611 DOI: 10.2196/12034

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Estimates of the sizes of hidden populations, including female sex workers (FSW), men who have sex with men (MSM), and people who inject drugs (PWID), are essential for understanding the magnitude of vulnerabilities, health care needs, risk behaviors, and HIV and other infections.

OBJECTIVE: This article advances the successive sampling-population size estimation (SS-PSE) method by examining the performance of a modification allowing visibility to be jointly modeled with population size in the context of 15 datasets. Datasets are from respondent-driven sampling (RDS) surveys of FSW, MSM, and PWID from three cities in Armenia. We compare and evaluate the accuracy of our imputed visibility population size estimates to those found for the same populations through other unpublished methods. We then suggest questions that are useful for eliciting information needed to compute SS-PSE and provide guidelines and caveats to improve the implementation of SS-PSE for real data.

METHODS: SS-PSE approximates the RDS sampling mechanism via the successive sampling model and uses the order of selection of the sample to provide information on the distribution of network sizes over the population members. We incorporate visibility imputation, a measure of a person's propensity to participate in the study, given that inclusion probabilities for RDS are unknown and social network sizes, often used as a proxy for inclusion probability, are subject to measurement errors from self-reported study data.

RESULTS: FSW in Yerevan (2012, 2016) and Vanadzor (2016) as well as PWID in Yerevan (2014), Gyumri (2016), and Vanadzor (2016) had great fits with prior estimations. The MSM populations in all three cities had inconsistencies with expert prior values. The maximum low prior value was larger than the minimum high prior value, making a great fit impossible. One possible explanation is the inclusion of transgender individuals in the MSM populations during these studies. There could be differences between what experts perceive as the size of the population, based on who is an eligible member of that population, and what members of the population perceive. There could also be inconsistencies among different study participants, as some may include transgender individuals in their accounting of personal network size, while others may not. Because of these difficulties, the transgender population was split apart from the MSM population for the 2018 study.

CONCLUSIONS: Prior estimations from expert opinions may not always be accurate. RDS surveys should be assessed to ensure that they have met all of the assumptions, that variables have reached convergence, and that the network structure of the population does not have bottlenecks. We recommend that SS-PSE be used in conjunction with other population size estimations commonly used in RDS, as well as results of other years of SS-PSE, to ensure generation of the most accurate size estimation.

©Katherine R McLaughlin, Lisa G Johnston, Laura J Gamble, Trdat Grigoryan, Arshak Papoyan, Samvel Grigoryan. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (http://publichealth.jmir.org), 14.03.2019.

Keywords: Armenia; female sex workers; men who have sex with men; people who inject drugs; population size estimation; respondent-driven sampling

References

  1. Sex Transm Infect. 2001 Apr;77(2):84-92 - PubMed
  2. Soc Networks. 2007 May;29(2):279-299 - PubMed
  3. AIDS Care. 2010 Jun;22(6):784-92 - PubMed
  4. AIDS. 2010 Sep 24;24(15):2301-3 - PubMed
  5. Sex Transm Infect. 2011 Jun;87(4):279-82 - PubMed
  6. Sociol Methodol. 2010 Aug;40(1):285-327 - PubMed
  7. Sex Transm Dis. 2013 Apr;40(4):304-10 - PubMed
  8. Sex Transm Infect. 2013 Aug;89(5):383-7 - PubMed
  9. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014 Sep 1;142:120-6 - PubMed
  10. Western Pac Surveill Response J. 2014 Sep 30;5(3):43-9 - PubMed
  11. Biometrics. 2015 Mar;71(1):258-266 - PubMed
  12. Electron J Stat. 2014;8(1):1491-1521 - PubMed
  13. Epidemiology. 2015 Nov;26(6):846-52 - PubMed
  14. J Urban Health. 2015 Dec;92(6):1052-64 - PubMed
  15. PLoS One. 2016 May 10;11(5):e0155150 - PubMed
  16. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2015 Jan;178(1):241-269 - PubMed
  17. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2017 Mar;7(1):45-53 - PubMed
  18. PLoS One. 2017 Nov 2;12(11):e0185711 - PubMed
  19. AIDS Behav. 2019 Jan;23(1):295-301 - PubMed

Publication Types