ArticlePloS one2022
Willingness to participate in geolocation-based research.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The benefits of in situ reporting: Experimental evidence from in-the-moment surveys of public transit riders.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- [Citizens as public health sentinels: understanding study participation in an adaptive and context-sensitive real-time cohort study during times of crisis].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Among the new research possibilities offered by smartphones, collecting geolocation data (e.g., GPS coordinates) holds a prominent position, allowing the investigation of individuals' mobility with greater precision and less effort than conventional data collection methods. However, geolocation data are still affected by errors (e.g., inaccurate recorded locations) and limitations (e.g., inability to record the purpose of a trip). Sending a survey right in the moment an event of interest is detected using geolocation data can add the missing information, while reducing memory errors that typically affect conventional surveys (sent some days/weeks after). However, the possibilities offered by both geolocation data and in-the-moment surveys triggered by geolocation data are limited by individuals' willingness to participate. This paper assesses such willingness using a conjoint experiment carried out on a sample of 1,016 members of an opt-in online panel in Spain. The effects on such willingness to accept the conditions offered to participants and their personal characteristics are also studied. The results show that asking panelists to participate in in-the-moment surveys does not negatively affect willingness compared to only sharing geolocation data. However, the conditions offered to panelists for their participation (mainly project duration and incentives) have a strong influence on their willingness. Furthermore, panelists less concerned with privacy and safety, and more experienced in sharing social media content, installing apps and using Google Maps, are more willing to participate. Finally, answers to open questions reveal that the main reason for participating is getting the incentive, while not participating is primarily related to privacy issues.
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.