Leveraging Digital Technology in Conducting Longitudinal Research on Mental Health in Pregnancy: Longitudinal Panel Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Collecting longitudinal data during and shortly after pregnancy is difficult, as pregnant women often avoid studies with repeated surveys. In contrast, pregnant women interact with certain websites at multiple stages throughout pregnancy and the postpartum period. This digital connection presents the opportunity to use a website as a way to recruit and enroll pregnant women into a panel study and collect valuable longitudinal data for research. These data can then be used to learn new scientific insights and improve health care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to describe the approaches applied and lessons learned from designing and conducting an online panel for health care research, specifically perinatal mood disorders. Our panel design and approach aimed to recruit a large sample (N=1200) of pregnant women representative of the US population and to minimize attrition over time. METHODS: We designed an online panel to enroll participants from the pregnancy and parenting website BabyCenter. We enrolled women into the panel from weeks 4 to 10 of pregnancy (Panel 1) or from weeks 28 to 33 of pregnancy (Panel 2) and administered repeated psychometric assessments from enrollment through 3 months postpartum. We employed a combination of adaptive digital strategies to recruit, communicate with, and build trust with participants to minimize attrition over time. We were transparent at baseline about expectations, used monetary and information-based incentives, and sent personalized reminders to reduce attrition. The approach was participant-centric and leveraged many aspects of flexibility that digital methods afford. RESULTS: We recruited 1179 pregnant women-our target was 1200-during a 26-day period between August 25 and September 19, 2016. Our strategy to recruit participants using adaptive sampling tactics resulted in a large panel that was similar to the US population of pregnant women. Attrition was on par with existing longitudinal observational studies in pregnant populations, and 79.2% (934/1179) of our panel completed another survey after enrollment. There were 736 out of 1179 (62.4%) women who completed at least one assessment in both the prenatal and postnatal periods, and 709 out of 1179 (60.1%) women who completed the final assessment. To validate the data, we compared participation rates and factors of perinatal mood disorders ascertained from this study with prior research, suggesting reliability of our approach. CONCLUSIONS: A suitably designed online panel created in partnership with a digital media source that reaches the target audience is a means to leverage a conveniently sized and viable sample for scientific research. Our key lessons learned are as follows: sampling tactics may need to be adjusted to enroll a representative sample, attrition can be reduced by adapting to participants' needs, and study engagement can be boosted by personalizing interactions with the flexibility afforded by digital technologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".