Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32539726›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Using online technologies to improve diversity and inclusion in cognitive interviews with young people.

Ushma D Upadhyay, Heather Lipkovich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Informal carers' perception on perspective taking when reporting as proxies about someone else's health.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Human factors in triaging forensic items: Casework pressures and ambiguity aversion.Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

2 authors.

Ushma D UpadhyayDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA. ushma.upadhyay@ucsf.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2731-2157
Heather LipkovichDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California, San Francisco, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA.

Funding

Gender, Autonomy, and Contraceptive Use Among Young PeopleK01HD077064 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI UPADHYAY, USHMA DESAI · 2014 to 2018
$722k
National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 1K01HD077064NICHD NIH HHS K01 HD077064
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to assess the feasibility of using multiple technologies to recruit and conduct cognitive interviews among young people across the United States to test items measuring sexual and reproductive empowerment. We sought to understand whether these methods could achieve a diverse sample of participants. With more researchers turning to approaches that maintain social distancing in the context of COVID-19, it has become more pressing to refine these remote research methods.

methodsWe used several online sites to recruit for and conduct cognitive testing of survey items. To recruit potential participants we advertised the study on the free online bulletin board, Craigslist, and the free online social network, Reddit. Interested participants completed an online Qualtrics screening form. To maximize diversity, we purposefully selected individuals to invite for participation. We used the video meeting platform, Zoom, to conduct the cognitive interviews. The interviewer opened a document with the items to be tested, shared the screen with the participant, and gave them control of the mouse and keyboard. After the participant self-administered the survey, the interviewer asked about interpretation and comprehension. After completion of the interviews we sent participants a follow-up survey about their impressions of the research methods and technologies used. We describe the processes, the advantages and disadvantages, and offer recommendations for researchers.

resultsWe recruited and interviewed 30 young people from a range of regions, gender identities, sexual orientations, ages, education, and experiences with sexual activity. These methods allowed us to recruit a purposefully selected diverse sample in terms of race/ethnicity and region. It also may have offered potential participants a feeling of safety and anonymity leading to greater participation from gay, lesbian, and transgender people who would not have agreed to participate in-person. Conducting the interviews using video chat may also have facilitated the inclusion of individuals who would not volunteer for in-person meetings. Disadvantages of video interviewing included participant challenges to finding a private space for the interview and problems with electronic devices.

conclusionsOnline technologies can be used to achieve a diverse sample of research participants, contributing to research findings that better respond to young people's unique identities and situations.

Indexed as

AdolescentBetacoronavirusCognitionCoronavirus InfectionsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHealth SurveysHumansInternetInterviews as TopicMalePandemicsPneumonia, ViralPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2AdolescentsCognitive interviewsDiversityInclusionOnline research methodsQualitative researchRace/ethnicityRecruitmentSocial distancingVideo interviewingYoung adultsYouth

Identifiers

PMID32539726
PMCPMC7295690

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.