Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34994701›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Unit Response and Costs in Web Versus Face-To-Face Data Collection: Comparison of Two Cross-sectional Health Surveys.

Elise Braekman, Stefaan Demarest, Rana Charafeddine, Sabine Drieskens, Finaba Berete, Lydia Gisle, Johan Van der Heyden, Guido Van Hal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Comparing survey delivery methods in healthcare: A randomized study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Data collection in pandemic times: the case of the Belgian COVID-19 health surveys.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Organizing the health interview survey at the local level: design of a pilot study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022
    Article
  19. 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

8 authors.

Elise BraekmanLifestyle and chronic diseases, Epidemiology and public health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7621-4596
Stefaan DemarestLifestyle and chronic diseases, Epidemiology and public health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2823-1372
Rana CharafeddineLifestyle and chronic diseases, Epidemiology and public health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6138-4322
Sabine DrieskensLifestyle and chronic diseases, Epidemiology and public health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9367-3105
Finaba BereteLifestyle and chronic diseases, Epidemiology and public health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7879-5005
Lydia GisleLifestyle and chronic diseases, Epidemiology and public health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0802-0845
Johan Van der HeydenLifestyle and chronic diseases, Epidemiology and public health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6796-642X
Guido Van HalSocial Epidemiology and Health Policy, Antwerp University, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-4611-4076

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPotential is seen in web data collection for population health surveys due to its combined cost-effectiveness, implementation ease, and increased internet penetration. Nonetheless, web modes may lead to lower and more selective unit response than traditional modes, and this may increase bias in the measured indicators.

objectiveThis research assesses the unit response and costs of a web study versus face-to-face (F2F) study.

methodsAlongside the Belgian Health Interview Survey by F2F edition 2018 (BHISF2F; net sample used: 3316), a web survey (Belgian Health Interview Survey by Web [BHISWEB]; net sample used: 1010) was organized. Sociodemographic data on invited individuals was obtained from the national register and census linkages. Unit response rates considering the different sampling probabilities of both surveys were calculated. Logistic regression analyses examined the association between mode system and sociodemographic characteristics for unit nonresponse. The costs per completed web questionnaire were compared with the costs for a completed F2F questionnaire.

resultsThe unit response rate is lower in BHISWEB (18.0%) versus BHISF2F (43.1%). A lower response rate was observed for the web survey among all sociodemographic groups, but the difference was higher among people aged 65 years and older (15.4% vs 45.1%), lower educated people (10.9% vs 38.0%), people with a non-Belgian European nationality (11.4% vs 40.7%), people with a non-European nationality (7.2% vs 38.0%), people living alone (12.6% vs 40.5%), and people living in the Brussels-Capital (12.2% vs 41.8%) region. The sociodemographic characteristics associated with nonresponse are not the same in the 2 studies. Having another European (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.20-2.13) or non-European nationality (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.79-3.70) compared to a Belgian nationality and living in the Brussels-Capital (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.41-2.10) or Walloon (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15-1.87) regions compared to the Flemish region are associated with a higher nonresponse only in the BHISWEB study. In BHISF2F, younger people (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.54) are more likely to be nonrespondents than older people, and this was not the case in BHISWEB. In both studies, lower educated people have a higher probability of being nonrespondent, but this effect is more pronounced in BHISWEB (low vs high education level: Web, OR 2.71, 95% CI 2.21-3.39 and F2F OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.48-1.95). The BHISWEB study had a considerable advantage; the cost per completed questionnaire was almost 3 times lower (€41 [US $48]) compared with F2F data collection (€111 [US $131]).

conclusionsThe F2F unit response rate was generally higher, yet for certain groups the difference between web and F2F was more limited. Web data collection has a considerable cost advantage. It is therefore worth experimenting with adaptive mixed-mode designs to optimize financial resources without increasing selection bias (eg, only inviting sociodemographic groups who are keener to participate online for web surveys while continuing to focus on increasing F2F response rates for other groups).

Indexed as

InternetAgedCross-Sectional StudiesData CollectionHealth SurveysHome EnvironmentHumansSurveys and Questionnairescostsdata collection costsdata collection modeface-to-facehealth interview surveyshealth surveysinternet penetrationnonresponseresponse rateunit responsewebweb dataweb survey

Identifiers

PMID34994701
PMCPMC8783289

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.