PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Stephen Uong
AU  - Eli S. Rosenberg
AU  - Steven M. Goodreau
AU  - Nicole Luisi
AU  - Patrick Sullivan
AU  - Samuel M. Jenness
TI  - Assessment of Bias in Estimates of Sexual Network Degree using Prospective Cohort Data
AID  - 10.1101/19003830
DP  - 2019 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 19003830
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/22/19003830.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/22/19003830.full
AB  - Background Sexual network degree, a count of ongoing partnerships, plays a critical role in the transmission dynamics of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other sexually transmitted infections (STI). Researchers often quantify degree using self-reported cross-sectional data on the day of survey, which may result in bias because of uncertainty about 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, we asked men about whether recent sexual partnerships were ongoing. We confirmed the true, ongoing status of those partnerships at baseline 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 exclusivity and racial pairing were associated with higher accuracy. Baseline degree generally overestimated confirmed degree. Bias, or number of ongoing partners different than predicted at baseline, was -0.28 overall, ranging 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 compared to white MSM, and for younger compared to older MSM.Conclusions Research studies may overestimate degree when it is quantified cross-sectionally. Adjustment and structured sensitivity analyses may account for bias in studies of HIV or STI prevention interventions.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.