Table 3.
Additional details of the studies included in this review (n = 20)
| Author(s) | Community representative sample* | RAS | Sampling method(s) | Sampling techniques | Sampling considerations | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a priori aim | Used registry/census data | ||||||||||
| Multiple non-probability methods | Probability (random) component | Network-based | In sampling/recruitment | In assessing representativeness | |||||||
| Snowballing | RDS | Online | |||||||||
| Fenta et al. 2006 [32] | high | Y | Random sampling from created frame | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ Lists from Ethiopian organizations, telephone directory |
✗ |
| Silove et al. 2007 [39] | high | Y | Probabilistic sampling from created frame (house-to-house screening) | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| De Maio et al. 2014 [30] G | high | Y | All eligible refugees listed in government settlement database were invited | ✗ | All in sample frame invited to participate | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| McAuliffe 2013 [37] G-Report | high | Y | Sample frame of eligible refugees listed in government settlement database. Quota sampling also used | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Commissariat for Refugees 2008 [29] G-Report | med/high | Y | Multistage stratified sampling | ✗ | Unclear | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓Municipality registries | ✓ |
| Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2011 [28] G-Report | med/high | Y | Random sampling from created frame | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ Government database |
✓ |
| Cochran et al. 2013G/Ao (2016) [23]* | med/high | Y | State-based stratification with random sampling from created frame. Supplementary purposive and probability proportional to size sampling | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Maximova & Krahn 2010 [36] G | med/high | Y | Systematic sampling (every nth name) from sampling frame | ✗ | Systematic every nth name in database | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ Government settlement database |
| Gerritsen et al. 2006 [33] | med/high | Y | Random samples of refugees were obtained from population registries, plus asylum seekers living in randomly selected reception centres | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Spring et al. 2003 [40] | med/high | Y | Multiple purposive sampling methods: Targeted, convenience, snowball sampling | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ School enrolments, birth statistics, state resettlement records |
| Bhui et al. 2006 [24] | medium | Y | Community based sampling (convenience) & primary care registry lists (random) | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Bilsborrow et al. 2011 [25] | medium | Y | Oversampling (probability sampling) first with supplementary snowball sampling | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Blight et al. 2006 [26] | medium | Y | Random sample drawn from a large registry of community living target group | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Heeren et al. 2012 [34] | medium | Y | National register of adult asylum seekers (sampled consecutively) | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Khavarpour & Rissel 1997 [35] | medium | Y | Snowball sampling with strategies to access diverse social networks | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Qiu et al. 2012 [38] | medium | N | Respondent driven sampling | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ Gender ratio |
| Vial et al. 2014 [18] | medium | N | Field (convenience) and online sampling | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Wylie & Jolly 2013 [19] | medium | N | Respondent driven sampling | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Bogic et al. 2012 [27] G | medium | Y | Multiple random and non-random sampling: resident registers, snowballing, community-based sampling | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Dunlavy 2001 [31] G-Thesis | medium | Y | Non-probability stratified quota sampling, community-based snowballing with multiple starting points | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
RAS = refugee and/or asylum seeker participants. Non-peer-reviewed publications are emphasize in bold in table
G Identified in grey literature search. G-Report Government reports identified in grey literature search. G-Thesis Dissertations identified in grey literature search