Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33448935›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Applications and Recruitment Performance of Web-Based Respondent-Driven Sampling: Scoping Review.

Yannick B Helms, Nora Hamdiui, Mirjam E E Kretzschmar, Luis E C Rocha, Jim E van Steenbergen, Linus Bengtsson, Anna Thorson, Aura Timen, Mart L Stein

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Exploring Different Sampling Strategies: A Description of Our Success in Reaching Hard-to-Reach Turkish and Moroccan Immigrant Women in The Netherlands.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Yannick B HelmsNational Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6840-9468
Nora HamdiuiNational Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2861-7072
Mirjam E E KretzschmarJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4394-7697
Luis E C RochaDepartment of Economics & Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9046-8739
Jim E van SteenbergenNational Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3652-5146
Linus BengtssonFlowminder Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9712-2669
Anna ThorsonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8703-6561
Aura TimenNational Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5793-5443
Mart L SteinNational Coordination Centre for Communicable Disease Control, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0502-7993
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLFlowminder Foundation · SEGhent University · BEKarolinska Institutet · SELeiden University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeb-based respondent-driven sampling is a novel sampling method for the recruitment of participants for generating population estimates, studying social network characteristics, and delivering health interventions. However, the application, barriers and facilitators, and recruitment performance of web-based respondent-driven sampling have not yet been systematically investigated.

objectiveOur objectives were to provide an overview of published research using web-based respondent-driven sampling and to investigate factors related to the recruitment performance of web-based respondent-driven sampling.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review on web-based respondent-driven sampling studies published between 2000 and 2019. We used the process evaluation of complex interventions framework to gain insights into how web-based respondent-driven sampling was implemented, what mechanisms of impact drove recruitment, what the role of context was in the study, and how these components together influenced the recruitment performance of web-based respondent-driven sampling.

resultsWe included 18 studies from 8 countries (high- and low-middle income countries), in which web-based respondent-driven sampling was used for making population estimates (n=12), studying social network characteristics (n=3), and delivering health-related interventions (n=3). Studies used web-based respondent-driven sampling to recruit between 19 and 3448 participants from a variety of target populations. Studies differed greatly in the number of seeds recruited, the proportion of successfully recruiting participants, the number of recruitment waves, the type of incentives offered to participants, and the duration of data collection. Studies that recruited relatively more seeds, through online platforms, and with less rigorous selection procedures reported relatively low percentages of successfully recruiting seeds. Studies that did not offer at least one guaranteed material incentive reported relatively fewer waves and lower percentages of successfully recruiting participants. The time of data collection was shortest in studies with university students.

conclusionsWeb-based respondent-driven sampling can be successfully applied to recruit individuals for making population estimates, studying social network characteristics, and delivering health interventions. In general, seed and peer recruitment may be enhanced by rigorously selecting and motivating seeds, offering at least one guaranteed material incentive, and facilitating adequate recruitment options regarding the target population's online connectedness and communication behavior. Potential trade-offs should be taken into account when implementing web-based respondent-driven sampling, such as having less opportunities to implement rigorous seed selection procedures when recruiting many seeds, as well as issues around online rather than physical participation, such as the risk of cheaters participating repeatedly.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionSampling StudiesCommunicationFemaleHumansInternetMaleSurveys and Questionnaireshard-to-reach populationsinterventionsonline samplingprobabilistic samplingpublic healthresearch methodologyrespondent-driven samplingwebRDS

Identifiers

PMID33448935
PMCPMC7846441
OpenAlexW3045318547

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.