ArticlemHealth2021
Evaluating study procedure training methods for a remote daily diary study of sexual minority women.
Article in mHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) methods can be used to remotely assess physical and mental health in daily life for hard-to-reach, marginalized, and geographically dispersed populations in the U.S., such as sexual minority women (e.g., lesbian, bisexual). However, EMA studies are often complex, and engaging participants from afar can be a challenge. This study experimentally examined whether adding videos to written recruitment materials would improve consent rates, reduce dropout rates, and improve survey completion rates for an online daily diary study.
methodsAs part of a 2-week study of same-sex female couples' health, 376 women ages 18-35 were recruited from across the U.S. using a market research firm. Couples were randomized to an introductory information condition (written + video materials or written-only materials) prior to informed consent.
resultsOverall, 97.1% of eligible women reviewed introductory materials and of these 96.7% consented; consent rates did not differ by condition (written + video: 97.1%, written-only: 97.1%). Dropout rates were low (5.4%) and survey completion rates were high (90.4% of surveys completed); there were no group differences for study dropout (written + video: 3.6%, written-only: 7.0%) or survey completion (written + video: 92.5%, written-only: 88.4%). Data from women randomized to receive videos indicated more than half (53.3%) did not watch any of the five videos in full. However, among those who viewed the videos, time spent watching videos, watching more videos in full, and watching at least one video in full were each positive associated with survey completion rates.
conclusionsIn summary, we had high consent rates, low dropout rates, and high survey completion rates regardless of video instructions. Although sexual minority women can be hard to reach, our potential participants appeared highly motivated to take part in research, and thus video recruitment materials were not necessary to improve participation. Future experimental research to maximize EMA study design and implementation could be important for populations less inclined to participate in EMA studies, or who are less familiar with research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.