Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36182804›Full record

ArticleEpidemics2022

A mixed methods analysis of participation in a social contact survey.

Emily Nixon, Taru Silvonen, Antoine Barreaux, Rachel Kwiatkowska, Adam Trickey, Amy Thomas, Becky Ali, Georgia Treneman-Evans, Hannah Christensen, Ellen Brooks-Pollock and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Emily NixonSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; School of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. Electronic address: emily.nixon@liverpool.ac.uk.
Taru SilvonenSchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Antoine BarreauxBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; INTERTRYP (Univ. Montpellier, CIRAD, IRD), Montpellier, France.
Rachel KwiatkowskaSchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Adam TrickeySchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Amy ThomasSchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Becky AliSchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Georgia Treneman-EvansSchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Hannah ChristensenSchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ellen Brooks-PollockSchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sarah DenfordSchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2018-11-ST2-015Medical Research Council MC/PC/19067Medical Research Council MC_PC_19067Medical Research Council MR/V028545/1Medical Research Council MR/V038613/1Wellcome Trust 217509Wellcome Trust 217509/Z/19/ZWellcome Trust 222770Wellcome Trust 222770/Z/21/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial contact survey data forms a core component of modern epidemic models: however, there has been little assessment of the potential biases in such data.

methodsWe conducted focus groups with university students who had (n = 13) and had never (n = 14) completed a social contact survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative findings were explored quantitatively by analysing participation data.

resultsThe opportunity to contribute to COVID-19 research, to be heard and feel useful were frequently reported motivators for participating in the contact survey. Reductions in survey engagement following lifting of COVID-19 restrictions may have occurred because the research was perceived to be less critical and/or because the participants were busier and had more contacts. Having a high number of contacts to report, uncertainty around how to report each contact, and concerns around confidentiality were identified as factors leading to inaccurate reporting. Focus groups participants thought that financial incentives or provision of study results would encourage participation.

conclusionsIncentives could improve engagement with social contact surveys. Qualitative research can inform the format, timing, and wording of surveys to optimise completion and accuracy.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsFocus GroupsHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUncertaintyEpidemic modellingFocus groupsInfectious diseaseMixed methodsResearch engagementSocial contact surveys

Identifiers

PMID36182804
PMCPMC7615368

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.