Literature DB >> 31757435

[Online surveys and the false illusion of the large n. On a survey on euthanasia among medical practitioners].

Mireia Utzet1, Unai Martin2.   

Abstract

The use of studies based on online surveys has expanded significantly. Despite having particularly small response rates, they allow a large sample size to be easily obtained. However, this strategy may entail a selection bias that significantly compromises the results. The results of two surveys on the regulation of euthanasia and assisted suicide are compared. One is an online survey with a self-selected sample and the other a survey with random sampling, conducted in 2018 among the members of the Medical Association of Bizkaia. The response rates were 10.4% (online survey) and 87.8% (random survey). No differences were found in sociodemographic characteristics, although there were differences in the opinion variables, so that the percentage of people who opposed euthanasia regulation was overestimated. The results of this study show that this sampling strategy generates biases in the results, some of which are difficult both to detect and to repair.
Copyright © 2019 SESPAS. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Encuesta online; Eutanasia; Euthanasia; Online survey; Response rate; Sample size; Sesgo; Tamaño muestral; Tasa de respuesta

Year:  2019        PMID: 31757435     DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.07.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gac Sanit        ISSN: 0213-9111            Impact factor:   2.139


  2 in total

1.  Identification of the multimorbidity training needs of primary care professionals: Protocol of a survey.

Authors:  Francisca Leiva-Fernández; Alba González-Hevilla; Juan Daniel Prados-Torres; Fuensanta Casas-Galán; Eva García-Domingo; Paula Ortiz-Suárez; Juan Antonio López-Rodríguez; Maria Victoria Pico-Soler
Journal:  J Multimorb Comorb       Date:  2021-06-21

2.  Social Inequalities in Health Determinants in Spanish Children during the COVID-19 Lockdown.

Authors:  Yolanda González-Rábago; Andrea Cabezas-Rodríguez; Unai Martín
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 3.390

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.