Conducting Surveys in the Era of Cellphones: Review of the Use of Online Panels in the Medical Literature
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The number of surveys conducted online is growing as people gain Internet access and the barriers to the use of random digit dialling (RDD) as a survey tool increase. One method of recruiting respondents is via sampling of online panels. The main issues with the use online panels are selection bias and external validity. Response rate (RR) reflects external validity and is the most commonly reported measure of a survey's quality and generalisability. The purpose of this structured review on online panels in the medical literature was to summarise: What proportion of studies used stratified sampling; What proportion of studies were weighted by demographic or propensity weights; What proportion of studies reported RR and how it was calculated; Which limitations of online surveying were discussed. Medline and Embase were searched from Jan 2005 to May 2007 for English-language clinical or epidemiologic surveys about healthcare that recruited respondents from online panels. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were specified a priori. Of the 2,289 unique citations identified, 34 met the inclusion criteria. As part of their mandate to promote standards of professional conduct and ethics for surveys and public opinion research, the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) provides standard definitions for calculating RR, which they define as the number of complete interviews with reporting units divided by the number of eligible reporting units in the sample. Nine studies stratified the sample to which invitations were sent and 9 weighted the results. Five studies did not discuss any limitations associated with the use of online panels. Eighteen studies mentioned selection bias and 27 mentioned external validity. Fifteen studies reported RR, ranging from 8% - 95%. The formula used to calculate RR for 14 of these was: (number of responses received)/(number of invitations sent). Six of these studies included enough information to allow recalculation of the RR as per the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). The recalculation resulted in lower RRs for five studies and remained the same for the sixth study. Sampling of online panels for research purposes has not reached the sophistication of more traditional methods, and hence it is important for studies to transparently state what has been done to overcome the barriers and report the RRs. This structured review, however, demonstrated that a number of studies either did not employ stratified sampling or weighting or did not clearly state whether or not they did. Less than half of the studies reported an RR, but this was often not calculated as per AAPOR guidelines.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,031 | 0,125 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,024 | 0,034 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».