Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sampling Males Who Inject Drugs in Haiphong, Vietnam: Comparison of Time-Location and Respondent-Driven Sampling Methods

  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accurate measurements of HIV prevalence and associated risk factors among hidden and high-risk groups are vital for program planning and implementation. However, only two sampling methods are purported to provide representative estimates for populations without sampling frames: time-location sampling (TLS) and respondent-driven sampling (RDS). Each method is subject to potential biases and questionable reliability. In this paper, we evaluate surveys designed to estimate HIV prevalence and associated risk factors among people who inject drugs (PWID) sampled through TLS versus RDS. In 2012, males aged ≥16 years who reported injecting drugs in the previous month and living in Haiphong, Vietnam, were sampled using TLS or RDS. Data from each survey were analyzed to compare HIV prevalence, related risk factors, socio-demographic characteristics, refusal estimates, and time and expenditures for field implementation. TLS (n = 432) and RDS (n = 415) produced similarly high estimates for HIV prevalence. Significantly lower proportions of PWID sampled through RDS received methadone treatment or met an outreach worker. Refusal estimates were lower for TLS than for RDS. Total expenditures per sample collected and number of person-days of staff effort were higher for TLS than for RDS. Both survey methods were successful in recruiting a diverse sample of PWID in Haiphong. In Vietnam, surveys of PWID are conducted throughout the country; although the refusal estimate was calculated to be much higher for RDS than TLS, RDS in Haiphong appeared to sample PWID with less exposure to services and required fewer financial and staff resources compared with TLS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

FIG. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 30 PWID participants were not provided with any recruitment coupons and therefore had no chances to recruit anyone.

  2. Those who returned for a secondary compensation were asked: “How many people did you try to give a coupon to?” and “Among those, how many accepted a coupon?”

References

  1. Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathorn D. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. AIDS. 2005; 19(Suppl 2): S67–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnston LG, Sabin K, Prybylski D. Update for Sampling Most-at-Risk and Hidden Populations for HIV Biological and Behavioral Surveillance. jHASE – J. HIV/AIDS Surveill. Epidemiol. 2010;2(1).

  3. International FH. Behavioral Surveillance Surveys: Guidelines for Repeated Behavioral Surveys in Populations at Risk of HIV.; 2000. Family Health International: Arlington, Virginia. http://www.who.int/hiv/strategic/en/bss_fhi2000.pdf. Accessed Jul 2012.

  4. UNAIDS. Guidelines on Surveillance among Populations Most at Risk for HIV.; 2011. UNAIDS: Geneva, Switzerland. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501668_eng.pdf. Accessed Jul 2012.

  5. Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997; 44(2): 174–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations | the homeless hub. Soc Probl. 2002; 49(1): 11–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gile KJ, Handcock MS. Respondent-driven sampling: an assessment of current methodology. Sociol Methodol. 2010; 40(1): 285–327. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01223.x.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnston LG, Sabin K, Hien MT, Huong PT. Assessment of respondent driven sampling for recruiting female sex workers in two Vietnamese cities: reaching the unseen sex worker. J Urban Heal. 2006; 83(7): 16–28. doi:10.1007/s11524-006-9099-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ramirez-Valles J, Heckathorn DD, Vázquez R, Diaz RM, Campbell RT. From networks to populations: the development and application of respondent-driven sampling among IDUs and Latino gay men. AIDS Behav. 2005; 9(4): 387–402. doi:10.1007/s10461-005-9012-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kendall C, Kerr LRFS, Gondim RC, et al. An empirical comparison of respondent-driven sampling, time location sampling, and snowball sampling for behavioral surveillance in men who have sex with men, Fortaleza. Brazil AIDS Behav. 2008; 12(4 Suppl): S97–104. doi:10.1007/s10461-008-9390-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wei C, McFarland W, Colfax GN, Fuqua V, Raymond HF. Reaching black men who have sex with men: a comparison between respondent-driven sampling and time-location sampling. Sex Transm Infect. 2012; 88(8): 622–6. doi:10.1136/sextrans-2012-050619.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Guo Y, Li X, Fang X, et al. A comparison of four sampling methods among men having sex with men in China: implications for HIV/STD surveillance and prevention. AIDS Care. 2011; 23(11): 1400–9. doi:10.1080/09540121.2011.565029.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Paz-Bailey G, Miller W, Shiraishi RW, Jacobson JO, Abimbola TO, Chen SY. Reaching men who have sex with men: a comparison of respondent-driven sampling and time-location sampling in Guatemala City. AIDS Behav. 2013. doi:10.1007/s10461-013-0589-7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Clark JL, Konda KA, Silva-Santisteban A, et al. Sampling methodologies for epidemiologic surveillance of men who have sex with men and transgender women in Latin America: an empiric comparison of convenience sampling, time space sampling, and respondent driven sampling. AIDS Behav. 2014; 18(12): 2338–48. doi:10.1007/s10461-013-0680-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Weir SS, Merli MG, Li J. A comparison of respondent-driven and venue-based sampling of female sex workers in Liuzhou, China. Sex Transm Infect. 2012; 88(Suppl 2): i95–101. doi:10.1136/sextrans-2012-050638.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vietnam Ministry of Health- Vietnam Authority of HIV/AIDS control. Viet Nam HIV/AIDS Estimates and Projections.; 2007–2012. Vietnam Ministry of Health: Hanoi, Vietnam.

  17. Nguyen TTM, Nguyen LT, Pham MD, Vu HH, Mulvey KP. Methadone maintenance therapy in Vietnam: an overview and scaling-up plan. Adv Prev Med. 2012; 2012: 732484. doi:10.1155/2012/732484.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Karon JM, Wejnert C. Statistical methods for the analysis of time-location sampling data. J Urban Health. 2012; 89(3): 565–86. doi:10.1007/s11524-012-9676-8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kral AH, Malekinejad M, Vaudrey J, et al. Comparing respondent-driven sampling and targeted sampling methods of recruiting injection drug users in San Francisco. J Urban Health. 2010; 87(5): 839–850. doi:10.1007/s11524-010-9486-9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wei C, McFarland W, Colfax GN, Fuqua V, Raymond HF. Reaching black men who have sex with men: a comparison between respondent-driven sampling and time-location sampling. Sex Transm Infect. 2012. doi:10.1136/sextrans-2012-050619.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Thanh DC, Moland KM, Fylkesnes K. The context of HIV risk behaviours among HIV-positive injection drug users in Vietnam: moving toward effective harm reduction. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9(1): 98. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-98.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Johnston LG. Introduction to respondent-driven sampling. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2013. doi:10.5040/9781472546968.0005.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gile KJ. Improved inference for respondent-driven sampling data with application to HIV prevalence estimation. J Am Stat Assoc. 2011; 106(493): 135–146. doi:10.1198/jasa.2011.ap09475.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gile KJ, Johnston LG, Salganik MJ. Diagnostics for respondent-driven sampling. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Statistics Soc. 2015; 178(1): 241–269. d.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Robinson WT, Risser JMH, McGoy S, et al. Recruiting injection drug users: a three-site comparison of results and experiences with respondent-driven and targeted sampling procedures. J Urban Health. 2006; 83(7): 29–38. doi:10.1007/s11524-006-9100-3.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Lansky A, Abdul-Quader AS, Cribbin M, et al. Developing an HIV behavioral surveillance system for injecting drug users: the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System. Public Health Rep. 2007; 122(Suppl 1): 48–55.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to the study participants and would like to thank the directors and research staff of the Haiphong Provincial AIDS Center and Haiphong Medical University. We also wish to thank the leader of the research group, Nguyen Thi Minh Ngoc, Haiphong Medical University for supporting this work.

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Partners in Health Research, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Hoang Vu Tran & Anh Van Do

  2. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Linh-Vi N. Le & Patrick Nadol

  3. FHI 360, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Lisa Grazina Johnston & Ha Thi Thanh Tran

  4. National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Tuan Anh Nguyen

  5. 64F Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1012 SC

    Lisa Grazina Johnston

Authors
  1. Hoang Vu Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linh-Vi N. Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lisa Grazina Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick Nadol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anh Van Do
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ha Thi Thanh Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tuan Anh Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Grazina Johnston.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tran, H.V., Le, LV.N., Johnston, L.G. et al. Sampling Males Who Inject Drugs in Haiphong, Vietnam: Comparison of Time-Location and Respondent-Driven Sampling Methods. J Urban Health 92, 744–757 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-9966-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-9966-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation