Cargando…
Prospective sampling bias in COVID-19 recruitment methods: experimental evidence from a national randomized survey testing recruitment materials
BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, social science research has required recruiting many prospective participants. Many researchers have explicitly taken advantage of widespread public interest in COVID-19 to advertise their studies. Leveraging this interest, however, risks creating...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9510455/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36162985 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01726-2 |
_version_ | 1784797444860542976 |
---|---|
author | Kennedy, Eric B. Charifson, Mia Jehn, Megan Jensen, Eric A. Vikse, Jenna |
author_facet | Kennedy, Eric B. Charifson, Mia Jehn, Megan Jensen, Eric A. Vikse, Jenna |
author_sort | Kennedy, Eric B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, social science research has required recruiting many prospective participants. Many researchers have explicitly taken advantage of widespread public interest in COVID-19 to advertise their studies. Leveraging this interest, however, risks creating unrepresentative samples due to differential interest in the topic. In this study, we investigate the design of survey recruitment materials with respect to the views of resultant participants. METHODS: Within a pan-Canadian survey (stratified random mail sampling, n = 1969), the design of recruitment invitations to prospective respondents was experimentally varied, with some prospective respondents receiving COVID-specific recruitment messages and others receiving more general recruitment messages (described as research about health and health policy). All respondents participated, however, in the same survey, allowing comparison of both demographic and attitudinal features between these groups. RESULTS: Respondents recruited via COVID-19 specific postcards were more likely to agree that COVID-19 is serious and believe that they were likely to contract COVID-19 compared to non-COVID respondents (odds = 0.71, p = 0.04; odds = 0.74, p = 0.03 respectively; comparing health to COVID-19 framed respondents). COVID-19 specific respondents were more likely to disagree that the COVID-19 threat was exaggerated compared to the non-COVID survey respondents (odds = 1.44, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 recruitment framing garnered a higher response rate, as well as a sample with greater concern about coronavirus risks and impacts than respondents who received more neutrally framed recruitment materials. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01726-2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9510455 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95104552022-09-26 Prospective sampling bias in COVID-19 recruitment methods: experimental evidence from a national randomized survey testing recruitment materials Kennedy, Eric B. Charifson, Mia Jehn, Megan Jensen, Eric A. Vikse, Jenna BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, social science research has required recruiting many prospective participants. Many researchers have explicitly taken advantage of widespread public interest in COVID-19 to advertise their studies. Leveraging this interest, however, risks creating unrepresentative samples due to differential interest in the topic. In this study, we investigate the design of survey recruitment materials with respect to the views of resultant participants. METHODS: Within a pan-Canadian survey (stratified random mail sampling, n = 1969), the design of recruitment invitations to prospective respondents was experimentally varied, with some prospective respondents receiving COVID-specific recruitment messages and others receiving more general recruitment messages (described as research about health and health policy). All respondents participated, however, in the same survey, allowing comparison of both demographic and attitudinal features between these groups. RESULTS: Respondents recruited via COVID-19 specific postcards were more likely to agree that COVID-19 is serious and believe that they were likely to contract COVID-19 compared to non-COVID respondents (odds = 0.71, p = 0.04; odds = 0.74, p = 0.03 respectively; comparing health to COVID-19 framed respondents). COVID-19 specific respondents were more likely to disagree that the COVID-19 threat was exaggerated compared to the non-COVID survey respondents (odds = 1.44, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 recruitment framing garnered a higher response rate, as well as a sample with greater concern about coronavirus risks and impacts than respondents who received more neutrally framed recruitment materials. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01726-2. BioMed Central 2022-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9510455/ /pubmed/36162985 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01726-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Kennedy, Eric B. Charifson, Mia Jehn, Megan Jensen, Eric A. Vikse, Jenna Prospective sampling bias in COVID-19 recruitment methods: experimental evidence from a national randomized survey testing recruitment materials |
title | Prospective sampling bias in COVID-19 recruitment methods: experimental evidence from a national randomized survey testing recruitment materials |
title_full | Prospective sampling bias in COVID-19 recruitment methods: experimental evidence from a national randomized survey testing recruitment materials |
title_fullStr | Prospective sampling bias in COVID-19 recruitment methods: experimental evidence from a national randomized survey testing recruitment materials |
title_full_unstemmed | Prospective sampling bias in COVID-19 recruitment methods: experimental evidence from a national randomized survey testing recruitment materials |
title_short | Prospective sampling bias in COVID-19 recruitment methods: experimental evidence from a national randomized survey testing recruitment materials |
title_sort | prospective sampling bias in covid-19 recruitment methods: experimental evidence from a national randomized survey testing recruitment materials |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9510455/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36162985 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01726-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kennedyericb prospectivesamplingbiasincovid19recruitmentmethodsexperimentalevidencefromanationalrandomizedsurveytestingrecruitmentmaterials AT charifsonmia prospectivesamplingbiasincovid19recruitmentmethodsexperimentalevidencefromanationalrandomizedsurveytestingrecruitmentmaterials AT jehnmegan prospectivesamplingbiasincovid19recruitmentmethodsexperimentalevidencefromanationalrandomizedsurveytestingrecruitmentmaterials AT jensenerica prospectivesamplingbiasincovid19recruitmentmethodsexperimentalevidencefromanationalrandomizedsurveytestingrecruitmentmaterials AT viksejenna prospectivesamplingbiasincovid19recruitmentmethodsexperimentalevidencefromanationalrandomizedsurveytestingrecruitmentmaterials |