MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365802030 · doi:10.2196/45188

Novel Location-Based Survey Using Cognitive Interviews to Assess Geographic Networks and Hotspots of Sex and Drug Use: Implementation and Validation Study

2023· article· en· W4365802030 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sean C. Reid, Vania Wang, Ryan D. Assaf, Sofia Kaloper, Alan T. Murray, Steven Shoptaw, Pamina M. Gorbach, Susan Cassels

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental HealthUniversity of California, Los AngelesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGeospatial analysisUsabilityGeographyGeographic information systemSurvey data collectionData scienceComputer scienceCartographyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative in the United States relies on HIV hotspots to identify where to geographically target new resources, expertise, and technology. However, interventions targeted at places with high HIV transmission and infection risk, not just places with high HIV incidence, may be more effective at reducing HIV incidence and achieving health equity. OBJECTIVE: We described the implementation and validation of a web-based activity space survey on HIV risk behaviors. The survey was intended to collect geographic information that will be used to map risk behavior hotspots as well as the geography of sexual networks in Los Angeles County. METHODS: The survey design team developed a series of geospatial questions that follow a 3-level structure that becomes more geographically precise as participants move through the levels. The survey was validated through 9 cognitive interviews and iteratively updated based on participant feedback until the saturation of topics and technical issues was reached. RESULTS: In total, 4 themes were identified through the cognitive interviews: functionality of geospatial questions, representation and accessibility, privacy, and length and understanding of the survey. The ease of use for the geospatial questions was critical as many participants were not familiar with mapping software. The inclusion of well-known places, landmarks, and road networks was critical for ease of use. The addition of a Google Maps interface, which was familiar to many participants, aided in collecting accurate and precise location information. The geospatial questions increased the length of the survey and warranted the inclusion of features to simplify it and speed it up. Using nicknames to refer to previously entered geographic locations limited the number of geospatial questions that appeared in the survey and reduced the time taken to complete it. The long-standing relationship between participants and the research team improved comfort to disclose sensitive geographic information related to drug use and sex. Participants in the cognitive interviews highlighted how trust and inclusive and validating language in the survey alleviated concerns related to privacy and representation. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides promising results regarding the feasibility of using a web-based mapping survey to collect sensitive location information relevant to ending the HIV epidemic. Data collection at several geographic levels will allow for insights into spatial recall of behaviors as well as future sensitivity analysis of the spatial scale of hotspots and network characteristics. This design also promotes the privacy and comfort of participants who provide location information for sensitive topics. Key considerations for implementing this type of survey include trust from participants, community partners, or research teams to overcome concerns related to privacy and comfort. The implementation of similar surveys should consider local characteristics and knowledge when crafting the geospatial components.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.286 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207