Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32396133›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2020

Recommendations From a Descriptive Evaluation to Improve Screening Procedures for Web-Based Studies With Couples: Cross-Sectional Study.

Jason W Mitchell, Tanaka M D Chavanduka, Stephen Sullivan, Rob Stephenson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Mitigating fraud in a fully decentralized clinical trial of a digital health intervention.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

4 authors.

Jason W MitchellOffice of Public Health Studies, Myron B Thompson School of Social Work, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0840-9404
Tanaka M D ChavandukaThe Center for Sexuality and Health Disparities, School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0167-3867
Stephen SullivanThe Center for Sexuality and Health Disparities, School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4812-2579
Rob StephensonThe Center for Sexuality and Health Disparities, School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9239-2640

Funding

Hierarchical Influences on PrEP use, willingness and readiness among male couplesR21MH111445 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MITCHELL, JASON W, STEPHENSON, ROB B. · 2016 to 2017
$422k
NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH111445
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough there are a number of advantages to using the internet to recruit and enroll participants into Web-based research studies, these advantages hinge on data validity. In response to this concern, researchers have provided recommendations for how best to screen for fraudulent survey entries and to handle potentially invalid responses. Yet, the majority of this previous work focuses on screening (ie, verification that individual met the inclusion criteria) and validating data from 1 individual, and not from 2 people who are in a dyadic relationship with one another (eg, same-sex male couple; mother and daughter). Although many of the same data validation and screening recommendations for Web-based studies with individual participants can be used with dyads, there are differences and challenges that need to be considered.

objectiveThis paper aimed to describe the methods used to verify and validate couples' relationships and data from a Web-based research study, as well as the associated lessons learned for application toward future Web-based studies involving the screening and enrollment of couples with dyadic data collection.

methodsWe conducted a descriptive evaluation of the procedures and associated benchmarks (ie, decision rules) used to verify couples' relationships and validate whether data uniquely came from each partner of the couple. Data came from a large convenience sample of same-sex male couples in the United States, who were recruited through social media venues for a Web-based, mixed methods HIV prevention research study.

resultsAmong the 3815 individuals who initiated eligibility screening, 1536 paired individuals (ie, data from both partners of a dyad) were assessed for relationship verification; all passed this benchmark. For data validation, 450 paired individuals (225 dyads) were identified as fraudulent and failed this benchmark, resulting in a total sample size of 1086 paired participants representing 543 same-sex male couples who were enrolled. The lessons learned from the procedures used to screen couples for this Web-based research study have led us to identify and describe four areas that warrant careful attention: (1) creation of new and replacement of certain relationship verification items, (2) identification of resources needed relative to using a manual or electronic approach for screening, (3) examination of approaches to link and identify both partners of the couple, and (4) handling of bots.

conclusionsThe screening items and associated rules used to verify and validate couples' relationships and data worked yet required extensive resources to implement. New or updating some items to verify a couple's relationship may be beneficial for future studies. The procedures used to link and identify whether both partners were coupled also worked, yet they call into question whether new approaches are possible to help increase linkage, suggesting the need for further inquiry.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesHumansInternetMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedQuality ImprovementSexual PartnersSurveys and Questionnairescouplesinternetmethods

Identifiers

PMID32396133
PMCPMC7251479

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.