Cauane Blumenberg1, Aluísio J D Barros2. 1. Postgraduate Programme in Epidemiology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil. cauane.epi@gmail.com. 2. Postgraduate Programme in Epidemiology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature and compare response rates (RRs) of web surveys to alternative data collection methods in the context of epidemiologic and public health studies. METHODS: We reviewed the literature using PubMed, LILACS, SciELO, WebSM, and Google Scholar databases. We selected epidemiologic and public health studies that considered the general population and used two parallel data collection methods, being one web-based. RR differences were analyzed using two-sample test of proportions, and pooled using random effects. We investigated agreement using Bland-and-Altman, and correlation using Pearson's coefficient. RESULTS: We selected 19 studies (nine randomized trials). The RR of the web-based data collection was 12.9 percentage points (p.p.) lower (95% CI = - 19.0, - 6.8) than the alternative methods, and 15.7 p.p. lower (95% CI = - 24.2, - 7.3) considering only randomized trials. Monetary incentives did not reduce the RR differences. A strong positive correlation (r = 0.83) between the RRs was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based data collection present lower RRs compared to alternative methods. However, it is not recommended to interpret this as a meta-analytical evidence due to the high heterogeneity of the studies.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature and compare response rates (RRs) of web surveys to alternative data collection methods in the context of epidemiologic and public health studies. METHODS: We reviewed the literature using PubMed, LILACS, SciELO, WebSM, and Google Scholar databases. We selected epidemiologic and public health studies that considered the general population and used two parallel data collection methods, being one web-based. RR differences were analyzed using two-sample test of proportions, and pooled using random effects. We investigated agreement using Bland-and-Altman, and correlation using Pearson's coefficient. RESULTS: We selected 19 studies (nine randomized trials). The RR of the web-based data collection was 12.9 percentage points (p.p.) lower (95% CI = - 19.0, - 6.8) than the alternative methods, and 15.7 p.p. lower (95% CI = - 24.2, - 7.3) considering only randomized trials. Monetary incentives did not reduce the RR differences. A strong positive correlation (r = 0.83) between the RRs was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based data collection present lower RRs compared to alternative methods. However, it is not recommended to interpret this as a meta-analytical evidence due to the high heterogeneity of the studies.
Keywords:
E-epidemiology; Epidemiology; Public health; Response rate; Survey methodology; Web surveys
Authors: Timothy J Beebe; Donna D McAlpine; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah Jenkins; Lindsey Haas; Michael E Davern Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Renske Spijkerman; Ronald Knibbe; Kim Knoops; Dike Van De Mheen; Regina Van Den Eijnden Journal: Addiction Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Lena Hohwü; Heidi Lyshol; Mika Gissler; Stefan Hrafn Jonsson; Max Petzold; Carsten Obel Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Nathan Peiffer-Smadja; Adeline Bauvois; Marie Chilles; Baptiste Gramont; Redwan Maatoug; Marie Bismut; Camille Thorey; Eric Oziol; Thomas Hanslik Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Dale J Langford; Jacob B Gross; Ardith Z Doorenbos; David J Tauben; John D Loeser; Debra B Gordon Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Rafael J Rivera-Ortiz; Edna Acosta-Pérez; Frances S Nieves-Casasnovas; Franchesca N Sánchez-Quintana Journal: P R Health Sci J Date: 2021-09 Impact factor: 0.600
Authors: Ariella R Korn; Ross A Hammond; Erin Hennessy; Aviva Must; Mark C Pachucki; Christina D Economos Journal: Child Obes Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 2.867