MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013232739 · doi:10.2196/14833

Feasibility of Assessing Economic and Sexual Risk Behaviors Using Text Message Surveys in African-American Young Adults Experiencing Homelessness and Unemployment: Single-Group Study

2020· article· en· W3013232739 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Larissa Jennings Mayo‐Wilson, Nancy Glass, Alain Labrique, Melissa Davoust, Fred M. Ssewamala, Sebastian Linnemayr, Matthew W. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthNational Institute of Mental HealthJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsDisadvantagedUnemploymentPsychological interventionDemographyPsychologyMedicineYoung adultHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)GerontologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Text messages offer the potential to better evaluate HIV behavioral interventions using repeated longitudinal measures at a lower cost and research burden. However, they have been underused in US minority settings. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the feasibility of assessing economic and sexual risk behaviors using text message surveys. METHODS: We conducted a single-group study with 17 African-American young adults, aged 18-24 years, who were economically disadvantaged and reported prior unprotected sex. Participants received a text message survey once each week for 5 weeks. The survey contained 14 questions with yes-no and numeric responses on sexual risk behaviors (ie, condomless sex, sex while high or drunk, and sex exchange) and economic behaviors (ie, income, employment, and money spent on HIV services or products). Feasibility measures were the number of participants who responded to the survey in a given week, the number of questions to which a participant responded in each survey, and the number of hours spent from sending a survey to participants to receiving their response in a given week. One discussion group was used to obtain feedback. RESULTS: Overall, 65% (n=11/17) of the participants responded to at least one text message survey compared with 35% (n=6/17) of the participants who did not respond. The majority (n=7/11, 64%) of the responders were women. The majority (n=4/6, 67%) of nonresponders were men. An average of 7.6 participants (69%) responded in a given week. Response rates among ever responders ranged from 64% to 82% across the study period. The mean number of questions answered each week was 12.6 (SD 2.7; 90% of all questions), ranging from 72% to 100%. An average of 6.4 participants (84%) answered all 14 text message questions in a given week, ranging from 57% to 100%. Participants responded approximately 8.7 hours (SD 10.3) after receiving the survey. Participants were more likely to answer questions related to employment, condomless sex, and discussions with sex partners. Nonresponse or skip was more often used for questions at the end of the survey relating to sex exchange and money spent on HIV prevention services or products. Strengths of the text message survey were convenience, readability, short completion time, having repeated measures over time, and having incentives. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal text message surveys may be a valuable tool for assessing HIV-related economic and sexual risk behaviors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03237871; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03237871.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207