MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016185304 · doi:10.1186/s12874-020-00958-4

Telephone versus web panel National Survey for monitoring adoption of preventive behaviors to climate change in populations: a case study of Lyme disease in Québec, Canada

2020· article· en· W3016185304 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Grâce Ngambo Domche, Pierre Valois, Magalie Canuel, Denis Talbot, Maxime Tessier, Cécile Aenishaenslin, Catherine Bouchard, Sandie I. Briand

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPublic Health Agency of CanadaThe Quebec Population Health Research NetworkInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
KeywordsRepresentativeness heuristicData collectionPopulationLyme diseasePublic healthMedicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthApplied psychologyFamily medicineStatisticsSocial psychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To monitor the adoption of climate change adaptive behaviors in the population, public health authorities have to conduct national surveys, which can help them target vulnerable subpopulations. To ensure reliable estimates of the adoption of these preventive behaviors, many data collection methods are offered by polling firms. The aim of this study was to compare a telephone survey with a web survey on Lyme disease with regard to their representativeness. METHODS: The data comes from a cross-sectional study conducted in the Province of Québec (Canada). In total, 1003 people completed the questionnaire by telephone and 956 filled in a web questionnaire. We compared the data obtained from both survey modes with the census data in regard to various demographic characteristics. We then compared the data from both samples in terms of self-reported Lyme disease preventive behaviors and other theoretically associated constructs. We also assessed the measurement invariance (equivalence) of the index of Lyme disease preventive behaviors across the telephone and web samples. RESULTS: Findings showed that neither the telephone nor the web panel modes of data collection can be considered more representative of the target population. The results showed that the proportion of item non-responses was significantly higher with the web questionnaire (5.6%) than with the telephone survey (1.3%), and that the magnitude of the differences between the two survey modes was nil for 19 out of the 30 items related to Lyme disease, and small for 11 of them. Results from invariance analyses confirmed the measurement invariance of an index of adaptation to Lyme disease, as well as the mean invariance across both samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that both samples provided similar estimates of the level of adaptation to Lyme disease preventive behaviors. In sum, the results of our study showed that neither survey mode was superior to the other. Thus, in studies where adaptation to climate change is monitored over time, using a web survey instead of a telephone survey could be more cost-effective, and researchers should consider doing so in future surveys on adaptation to climate. However, we recommend conducting a pretest study before deciding whether to use both survey modes or only one of them.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.598
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.074 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207