MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389223698 · doi:10.2196/44705

Assessment of App-Based Versus Conventional Survey Modalities for Reproductive Health Research in India, South Africa, and the United States: Comparative Cross-Sectional Study

2023· article· en· W4389223698 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Amanda A. Shea, Jonathan Thornburg, Virginia J. Vitzthum

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsReproductive healthModalitiesSample (material)Data collectionEnvironmental healthMedicineGerontologyPsychologyFamily medicineDemographyGeographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a widely acknowledged global need for more research on reproductive health (including contraception, menstrual health, sexuality, and maternal morbidities) and its impact on overall well-being. However, several factors-notably, high costs, considerable effort, and the sensitivity of these topics-impede the collection of the necessary data, especially in less accessible and lower-income populations. The burgeoning ownership of smartphones and growing use of menstrual tracking apps (MTAs) may present an opportunity to conduct reproductive health research with fewer impediments than those associated with conventional survey methods. OBJECTIVE: The main objective was to ascertain the feasibility, potential usefulness, and limitations of conducting reproductive health research using a mainstream MTA. METHODS: In each of the 3 countries, we evaluated questionnaire responses from (1) current users of an MTA (Clue) and (2) participants surveyed using conventional survey modalities (in-person interviews, SMS text messaging, and web-based questionnaires). We compared these responses with published data collected from large nationally representative benchmark samples (the United States Census and the Demographic and Health Surveys for South Africa and India). RESULTS: Given a sufficiently large user base, app-distributed surveys were able to quickly capture large samples on par with other methods and at low cost, with the additional advantage of being able to deploy remotely and simultaneously across countries. In each country, neither the app nor the conventional modality sample emerged as a consistently closer match to the distributions of the demographic attributes and the patterns of contraceptive use reported for the respective benchmark sample. Despite efforts to obtain representative samples, the conventional modality samples sometimes over- and other times underrepresented some subgroups (eg, underrepresentation of married persons in the United States and overrepresentation of rural residents in India). In all 3 countries, app users were younger, more educated, more likely to be urban residents, and more likely to use nonhormonal rather than hormonal contraceptive methods compared with the respective national benchmark. App users, compared with the conventional modality samples, consistently reported being more comfortable discussing their menstrual periods with other persons (eg, family, friends, and health care providers), suggesting that MTA users may be more likely to respond truthfully to questions on sensitive or taboo health topics. The app samples' consistency across countries regarding users' demographic profiles, contraceptive choices, and personal attitudes toward menstruation supports the validity of making cross-country comparisons of survey findings for a given app's users. CONCLUSIONS: MTAs such as Clue can provide a quick, scalable, and cost-effective method for collecting health data, including on sensitive topics, across a wide variety of settings and countries. With expanding global access to technology and the increasing use of these tools, consumer MTAs can be a viable survey modality to strengthen reproductive health research.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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 score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.559
GPT teacher head0.645
Teacher spread0.086 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→