TY - JOUR T1 - Assessment of Bias in Estimates of Sexual Network Degree using Prospective Cohort Data JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/19003830 SP - 19003830 AU - Stephen Uong AU - Eli S. Rosenberg AU - Steven M. Goodreau AU - Nicole Luisi AU - Patrick Sullivan AU - Samuel M. Jenness Y1 - 2019/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/08/14/19003830.abstract N2 - Background Sexual network degree, a count of ongoing partnerships, plays a critical role in HIV/STI transmission dynamics. Degree is often quantified using self-reported cross-sectional data on the day of survey, but this may result in bias because of uncertainty about predicting future sexual activity.Methods We evaluated the bias of a cross-sectional degree measure with a prospective cohort study of men who have sex with men (MSM). At baseline, men were asked about whether recent sexual partnerships were ongoing. The true ongoing status of those partnerships at baseline was confirmed at follow-up. With logistic regression, we estimated the partnership-level predictors of baseline measure accuracy. With Poisson regression, we estimated the longitudinally confirmed degree as a function of baseline predicted degree.Results Across partnership types, the baseline ongoing status measure was 70% accurate, with higher negative predictive value (91%) than positive predictive value (39%). Partnership factors associated with higher accuracy included partnership exclusivity and racial pairing. Baseline degree generally overestimated confirmed degree. The bias, or the number of ongoing partners different than predicted at baseline, was -0.28 overall. This ranged from -1.91 to -0.41 for MSM with any ongoing partnerships at baseline. Comparing MSM of the same baseline degree, the level of bias was stronger for black MSM compared to white MSM, and for younger MSM compared to older MSM.Conclusions Degree may be overestimated in studies when quantified cross-sectionally. Research studies and HIV/STI prevention interventions using degree measures should account for this bias through adjustment and structured sensitivity analyses.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by National Institutes of Health grants R01 MH085600, R21 HD075662, R21 MH112449, and R01 AI138783.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesAny clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.Not ApplicablePrimary data are not available due to IRB restrictions. ER -