MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307588028 · doi:10.2196/jmir.5068

Assessing the Effects of Participant Preference and Demographics in the Usage of Web-based Survey Questionnaires by Women Attending Screening Mammography in British Columbia

2016· article· en· W2307588028 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rebecca Mlikotic, Brent Parker, Rasika Rajapakshe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusInterior HealthBC Cancer Agency
FundersBC Cancer Foundation
KeywordsDemographicsThe InternetData collectionPreferenceWeb surveyMedicineMammographyScope (computer science)Family medicineWorld Wide WebComputer scienceDemographyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Increased usage of Internet applications has allowed for the collection of patient reported outcomes (PROs) and other health data through Web-based communication and questionnaires. While these Web platforms allow for increased speed and scope of communication delivery, there are certain limitations associated with this technology, as survey mode preferences vary across demographic groups. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of demographic factors and participant preferences on the use of a Web-based questionnaire in comparison with more traditional methods (mail and phone) for women participating in screening mammography in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: A sample of women attending the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC) participated in a breast cancer risk assessment project. The study questionnaire was administered through one of three modes (ie, telephone, mail, or website platform). Survey mode preferences and actual methods of response were analyzed for participants recruited from Victoria General Hospital. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate the association of demographic factors (ie, age, education level, and ethnicity) with certain survey response types. RESULTS: A total of 1192 women successfully completed the study questionnaire at Victoria General Hospital. Mail was stated as the most preferred survey mode (509/1192, 42.70%), followed by website platform (422/1192, 35.40%), and telephone (147/1192, 12.33%). Over 80% (955/1192) of participants completed the questionnaire in the mode previously specified as their most preferred; mail was the most common method of response (688/1192, 57.72%). Mail was also the most preferred type of questionnaire response method when participants responded in a mode other than their original preference. The average age of participants who responded via the Web-based platform (age 52.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 52.1-53.7) was significantly lower than those who used mail and telephone methods (age 55.9, 95% CI 55.2-56.5; P<.001); each decade of increased age was associated with a 0.97-fold decrease in the odds of using the website platform (P<.001). Web-based participation was more likely for those who completed higher levels of education; each interval increase leading to a 1.83 increase in the odds of website platform usage (P<.001). Ethnicity was not shown to play a role in participant preference for the website platform (P=.96). CONCLUSIONS: It is beneficial to consider participant survey mode preference when planning to collect PROs and other patient health data. Younger participants and those of higher education level were more likely to use the website platform questionnaire; Web-based participation failed to vary across ethnic group. Because mail questionnaires were still the most preferred survey mode, it will be important to employ strategies, such as user-friendly design and Web-based support, to ensure that the patient feedback being collected is representative of the population being served.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.335
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207