| Literature DB >> 24067329 |
Rajani S Sadasivam1, Erik M Volz, Rebecca L Kinney, Sowmya R Rao, Thomas K Houston.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in the United States. Effective Web-assisted tobacco interventions are often underutilized and require new and innovative engagement approaches. Web-based peer-driven chain referrals successfully used outside health care have the potential for increasing the reach of Internet interventions.Entities:
Keywords: Web-assisted tobacco interventions; peer-driven chain referrals; recruitment; respondent-driven sampling
Year: 2013 PMID: 24067329 PMCID: PMC3786127 DOI: 10.2196/resprot.2786
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Res Protoc ISSN: 1929-0748
Figure 1Equation for covariance between sample units in a chain-referral design.
Key data elements.a
| Data elements | Parameters tested |
| New smoker registration | Demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, education, marital status) |
| Smoking-related comorbidities | |
| Allow smoking at home | |
| Number of cigarettes smoked per day | |
| Quit in last 12 months | |
| Want to stop smoking | |
| Peer-navigator | Number of estimated smokers in network (family, friends, and acquaintances) |
| Previous website referrals | |
| Number of subjects willing to be referred | |
| Syme/Berkman Social Network Index [ | |
| Share2Quit | Demographics of referred smoker (age, sex, race) |
| Nature of relationship with referrer | |
| Length of relationship | |
| Number of interactions | |
| Tools used for interactions | |
| PN | Number of subjects attempted to refer |
| Sociometrics of refused (friend, family, or acquaintance) | |
| Influence on PN smoking | |
| Satisfaction with Share2Quit tools | |
| Decide2Quit.org Web tracking (all users) | Number of logons, pages visited, time on page, etc |
| Number of referrals | |
| Number of new registrations |
aAll instruments linked through unique RDS ID codes to connect recruitment waves
Power calculations for comparing the association of referral success and social connectedness.
| Number of highly socially connected peer navigators | Number of peer navigators not highly socially connected | Proportion of successful referrals among N1 | Absolute detectable difference |
| 300 | 300 | 0.1 | 0.06 |
| 300 | 300 | 0.5 | 0.11 |
| 200 | 400 | 0.1 | 0.06 |
| 200 | 400 | 0.5 | 0.12 |
| 100 | 500 | 0.1 | 0.07 |
| 100 | 500 | 0.5 | 0.15 |