Handling missing data through prevention strategies in self-administered questionnaires: a discussion paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-administered questionnaires are efficient and low-cost ways of collecting data with wide cohorts. Nonetheless, their use in studies can result in a high occurrence of missing data, which can affect the statistical power, representativeness and generalisability of the findings. Imputation methods have been considered efficient statistical techniques for managing missing data. However, they have also been associated with limits, such as the risk of under-estimation of the effect, lower statistical power and decrease of correlation among variables. Recent studies have highlighted the importance of using prevention strategies to avoid missing data before the data are analysed. AIM: To identify strategies for preventing the occurrence of missing data and to discuss their effects, as well as their methodological and statistical considerations. DISCUSSION: The article discusses prevention strategies related to the administration format and follow-up and reminders. Strategies such as the use of electronic tablets, email and telephone reminders are associated with lower rates of missing data in self-administered questionnaires. However, methodological and statistical limits, including the absence of a comparison group and statistical validation of the reported results, limits the capacity to establish robust consensus. CONCLUSION: Prevention strategies represent relevant and feasible avenues for handling missing data in a wide range of clinical, nursing and epidemiological research. More projects based on robust design are needed to ensure accurate and reliable data are collected from patients, families, communities and clinicians. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: It is important for clinicians and nurses to understand the phenomenon of missing data and the strategies available to prevent missing data, to collect data representing the patients' and families' perspectives and experiences.
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 | 0.204 | 0.245 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".