Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29879207›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Are Mechanical Turk worker samples representative of health status and health behaviors in the U.S.?

Kelly Walters, Dimitri A Christakis, Davene R Wright

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
38.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

110 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 250 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Educating the Public on the Health Risks of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes: Results From a US-Based Convenience Sample.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kelly WaltersCenter for Child Health, Behavior, and Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Dimitri A ChristakisCenter for Child Health, Behavior, and Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Davene R WrightCenter for Child Health, Behavior, and Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8574-4572
Seattle Children's Hospital · US

Funding

Parent Risk CommunicationK01HL130413 · NHLBI · SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI WRIGHT, DAVENE RENEE · 2016 to 2020
$830k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL130413
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAmazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) is frequently used to administer health-related surveys and experiments at a low cost, but little is known about its representativeness with regards to health status and behaviors.

methodsA cross-sectional survey comprised of questions from the nationally-representative 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and 2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) was administered to 591 MTurk workers and 393 masters in 2016. Health status (asthma, depression, BMI, and general health), health behaviors (influenza vaccination, health insurance, smoking, and physical activity), and demographic characteristics of the two MTurk populations (workers and masters) were compared to each other and, using Poisson regression, to a nationally-representative BRFSS and NHANES samples.

resultsWorkers and master demographics were similar. MTurk users were more likely to be aged under 50 years compared to the national sample (86% vs. 55%) and more likely to complete a college degree than the national sample (50% vs. 26%). Adjusting for covariates, MTurk users were less likely to be vaccinated for influenza, to smoke, to have asthma, to self-report being in excellent or very good health, to exercise, and have health insurance but over twice as likely to screen positive for depression relative to a national sample. Results were fairly consistent among different age groups.

conclusionsMTurk workers are not a generalizable population with regards to health status and behaviors; deviations did not follow a trend. Appropriate health-related uses for MTurk and ways to improve upon the generalizability of MTurk health studies are proposed.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth StatusSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID29879207
PMCPMC5991724
OpenAlexW2561217404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.