MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384626486 · doi:10.2196/46395

Web-Based Survey Piloting Process as a Model for Developing and Testing Past Contraceptive Use and Pregnancy History: Cystic Fibrosis Case Study

2023· article· en· W4384626486 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily M. Godfrey, Malaika Schwartz, Karen Hinckley Stukovsky, Danielle Woodward, Amalia Magaret, Moira L. Aitken

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of HealthWashington State University
KeywordsRespondentMedicinePopulationInterviewCognitive interviewFamily medicineCognitionEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Individuals with complex, chronic diseases are now living longer, making reproductive health an important topic to address in the health care setting. Self-respondent surveys are a feasible way to collect past contraceptive use and pregnancy history to assess contraceptive safety and effectiveness. Because sensitive topics, such as contraception and pregnancy outcomes, can vary across social groups or cultures, piloting questions and evaluating survey administration procedures in the target population are necessary for precise and reliable responses before wide distribution. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a precise and reliable survey instrument and related procedures among individuals with cystic fibrosis regarding contraceptive use and obstetrical history. METHODS: We piloted and tested web-based questions related to contraceptive use and pregnancy history among 50 participants with and those without cystic fibrosis aged 18 to 45 years using a 3-tier process. Findings from each tier informed changes to the questionnaire before testing in the subsequent tier. Tier 1 used cognitive pretesting to assess question understanding and the need for memory prompts. In tier 2, we used test-retest self- and interviewer-administered approaches to assess question reliability, evaluate response missingness, and determine confidence between 2 types of survey administration approaches. In tier 3, we tested the questionnaire for clarity, time to complete, and whether additional prompts were necessary. RESULTS: In tier 1, respondents suggested improvements to the web-based survey questions and to the written and visual prompts for better recall regarding past contraceptive use. In tier 2, the test-retest reliability between self- and interviewer-administrative procedures of "ever use" contraceptive method questions was similar, with percent absolute agreement ranging between 84% and 100%. When the survey was self-administered, the percentage of missing responses was higher and respondent confidence about month and year when contraceptive methods were used was lower. Most respondents reported that they preferred the self-administered survey because it was more convenient and faster to complete. CONCLUSIONS: Our 3-tier process to pilot web-based survey questions related to contraceptive and obstetrical history in our complex disease population helped us tailor content and format questions before wide dissemination to our target population. Results from this pilot study informed the subsequent larger study design to include a 10% respondent test-retest self- and interviewer-administered quality control component to better inform imputation procedures of missing data.

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)0.115
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.139
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1150.139
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.625
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.079 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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