Random digit dialing and internet panel data collection methods in two Canadian provinces: Comparing costs, data missingness, straightlining, and sociodemographic characteristics of sample, and responses from a survey on nutrition policy support and causes of chronic disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is little consensus on what public health survey administration methods are better (data generation and cost-wise) for collecting data on knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs (KAB). We compare random digit dialing (RDD) and internet panel sampling methods for gathering KAB data on chronic disease etiology and nutrition policy. Design and methods: We collected survey data from residents of Alberta and Manitoba in 2017, using population-based samples generated through: RDD and an internet panel. We calculated response rate and cost for each mode. To compare missing data and straightlining, we used linear regression. We used Chi-squared tests to compare sociodemographic characteristics between the two modes and to the 2016 Canadian Census data. KAB responses were also compared between modes using Chi-squared tests. Results: The internet panel was less expensive and had more missing data than the RDD. Straightlining was comparable across modes. Both modes tended to oversample specific population groups (e.g. older adults); while undersampling others (e.g. Indigenous people) compared to the Canadian Census. RDD had more females and older respondents than the internet panel respondents. Internet panel respondents were less supportive of nutrition policy options, and agreed more with individual responsibility and blame for obesity, compared to RDD respondents. Conclusions: Both modes present advantages and disadvantages. Differences in sociodemographics and KAB responses between modes indicate sampling methods for public health surveys may be considered in survey design and administration. Researchers should discuss their findings vis-a-vis the specific limitations of each method they employed and adopt strategies to mitigate them.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.122 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads 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".