Skip to main content
Log in

External validity in a population-based national prospective study – the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study (NOWAC)

  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: ‘The Norwegian Women and Cancer Study’ (NOWAC) was created as a national population-based cohort study by taking advantage of the existing population registers in Norway. Thus, the women in the NOWAC study should be representative for the entire female population in the corresponding age-groups. The aim of this paper was to study the external validity of the cohort as a necessary premise for the estimation of population attributable risk. Methods: Between 1991 and 1997 women were sampled randomly from the national Central person registry in Norway. A total of 179,388 women were invited, of whom 102,443 can be included in the forthcoming follow-up analysis. The response-rates were around 60% in the age-groups 30–34 years till 55–59 years, while 44.7% responded among those aged 65–70 years. Information was collected by postal questionnaires. Follow-up information was based on linkage to national end-point registers with use of the unique national identification number given all Norwegians. Results: Validation of the information on parity and education by linkage to national registers showed only minor differences for these factors between the responders and the total sample of women. A postal survey among non-responders indicated that the most important reasons for not returning the questionnaire were lack of time and concern about privacy. The results showed no differences in life-style factors between the original responders and the non-responders. No significant differences were found between the observed incidence rates for all cancer sites or cancer of the breast compared with national figures for the year 1999. Conclusion: The analysis revealed no major source of selection bias that could seriously invalidate the estimation of population attributable risk.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rothman KJ,Greenland S (1998) Validity and generalizability in epidemiologic studies. In: Armitage P,Colton T, eds. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Chichester: J Wiley &; Sons, pp. 4694-4706.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Benichou J (1998) Attributable risk. In: Armitage P,Colton T, eds. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Chichester: J Wiley &; Sons, pp. 216-229.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lund E,Adami HO,Meirik O,Bergstrøm R,Christoffersen T,Bergsjø P (1989) Oral contraceptive use and premenopausal breast cancer in Norway and Sweden-possible effects of different pattern of use. Int J Epidemiol 18: 527-532.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lunde AS,Lundeborg S,Lettenstrom GS,Thygesen L,Huebner J (1980) The person-number systems of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Israel. Vital Health Stat 2 2: 1-59; US Dep Health and Social affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Myrland Ø,Trondsen T,Johnston RS,Lund E (2000) Determinants of seafood consumption in Norway: Lifestyle, revealed preferences, and barriers to consumption. Food Qual Pref 11: 169-188.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hjartäker A,Lund E (1998) Relationship between dietary habits, age, lifestyle and socio-economic status among adult Norwegian women. The Norwegian Women and Cancer Study. Eur J Clin Nutr 52: 565-572.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bakken K,Eggen AE,Lund E (2001) Hormone replacement therapy in Norwegian women, 1996-1997. Maturitas 40: 131-141.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lund E,Gram IT (1998) The impact of design on response rates and exposure estimates from postal questionnaires. A population based randomized trial of 5000 Norwegian women aged 35-49 years. Scand J Soc Med 26: 154-160.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lund E (1981) Pilot study for the evaluation of completeness of reporting to the cancer registry. Incidence of cancer in Norway, 1978. Oslo; The Cancer Registry of Norway, 11-14.

    Google Scholar 

  10. The Cancer Registry of Norway(2002) Cancer in Norway 1999. Kreftregisteret, Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brandt PA,Goldbohm RA,Veer PvT,Volovics A,Hermus RJJ,Sturmans F (1990) A large-scale prospective cohort on diet and cancer in the Netherlands. Clin J Epidemiol 43: 285-295.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Manjer J,Carlsson S,Elmstahl S, et al. (2001) The malmo diet and cancer study: representativity, cancer incidence and mortality in participants and non-participants. Eur J Cancer Prev 10: 489-499.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kolonel LN,Henderson BE,Hankin JH, et al. (2000) A multiethnic cohort in Hawai and Los Angeles: Baseline characteristics. Am J Epidemiol 151: 346-357.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Million Women Study Collaborative Group(1999) The Million Women Study: design and characteristics of the study population. Breast Cancer Research 1: 73-80.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Willett WC,Hunter DJ,Stampfer MJ, et al. (1992) Dietary fat and fiber in relation to risk of breast cancer: an 8-year follow-up. JAMA 268: 2037-2044.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Clavel-Chapelon F,van Liere MJ,Giubout C, et al. (1997) E3N, a French cohort study on cancer risk factors. E3N Group. Etude Epidemiologique aupres de femmes de l'Education Nationale. Eur J Cancer Prev 6: 473-478.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bernstein L,Allen M,Anton-Culver H, et al. (2002) High breast cancer incidence rates among California teachers: results from the California Yeachers Study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 13: 625-635.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hammond EC (1966) Smoking in relation to the death rates of one million men and women. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 19: 127-204.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Philips RL,Garfinkel L,Kuzma JW, et al. (1980) Mortality among California Seventh-day Adventists for selected cancer sites. JNCI 65: 1097-1107.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Faggiano F,Partanen T,Kogevinas M,Bofetta P (1997) Socioeconomic differences in cancer incidence and mortality. In: Kogevinas M,Pearce N,Susser M,Bofetta P, eds. Social Inequalities and Cancer. IARC Scientific Publ. no. 138; Lyon.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lund Eiliv.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eiliv, L., Merethe, K., Tonje, B. et al. External validity in a population-based national prospective study – the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study (NOWAC). Cancer Causes Control 14, 1001–1008 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CACO.0000007982.18311.2e

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CACO.0000007982.18311.2e

Navigation