Mitigation of Participant Loss to Follow-Up Using Facebook: All Our Families Longitudinal Pregnancy Cohort (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND Facebook, a popular social media site, allows users to communicate and exchange information. Social media sites can also be used as databases to search for individuals, including cohort participants. Retaining and tracking cohort participants are essential for the validity and generalizability of data in longitudinal research. Despite numerous strategies to minimize loss to follow-up, maintaining contact with participants is time-consuming and resource-intensive. Social media may provide alternative methods of contacting participants who consented to follow-up but could not be reached, and thus are potentially “lost to follow-up.” OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine if Facebook was a feasible method for identifying and contacting participants of a longitudinal pregnancy cohort who were lost to follow-up and re-engaging them without selection bias. METHODS This study used data from the All Our Families cohort. Of the 2827 mother-child dyads within the cohort, 237 participants were lost to follow-up. Participants were considered lost to follow-up if they had agreed to participate in additional research, completed at least one of the perinatal questionnaires, did not complete the 5-year postpartum questionnaire, and could not be contacted after numerous attempts via phone, email, or mail. Participants were considered to be matched to a Facebook profile if 2 or more characteristics matched information previously collected. Participants were sent both a friend request and a personal message through the study’s Facebook page and were invited to verify their enrollment in the study. The authors deemed a friend request was necessary because of the reduced functionality of nonfriend direct messaging at the time. If the participant accepted the study’s friend request, then a personalized message was sent. Participants were considered reconnected if they accepted the friend request or responded to any messages. Participants were considered re-engaged if they provided up-to-date contact information. RESULTS Compared with the overall cohort, participants who were lost to follow-up (n=237) were younger (P=.003), nonmarried (P=.02), had lower household income (P<.001), less education (P<.001), and self-identified as being part of an ethnic minority (P=.02). Of the 237 participants considered lost to follow-up, 47.7% (113/237) participants were identified using Facebook. Among the 113 identified participants, 77.0% (87/113) were contacted, 32.7% (37/113) were reconnected, and 17.7% (20/113) were re-engaged. No significant differences were found between those identified on Facebook (n=113) and those who were not able to be identified (n=124). CONCLUSIONS Facebook identified 47.6% (113/237) of participants who were considered lost to follow-up, and the social media site may be a practical tool for reconnecting with participants. The results from this study demonstrate that social networking sites, such as Facebook, could be included in the development of retention practices and can be implemented at any point in cohort follow-up.
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 | 0,025 | 0,066 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 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 ».