Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36635637›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2023

Impact of sampling and data collection methods on maternity survey response: a randomised controlled trial of paper and push-to-web surveys and a concurrent social media survey.

Siân Harrison, Fiona Alderdice, Maria A Quigley

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Strategic approaches for global cervical cancer elimination: An update review and call for national action.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Siân HarrisonNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. sian.harrison@npeu.ox.ac.uk.
Fiona AlderdiceNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Maria A QuigleyNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNovel survey methods are needed to tackle declining response rates. The 2020 National Maternity Survey included a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and social media survey to compare different combinations of sampling and data collection methods with respect to: response rate, respondent representativeness, prevalence estimates of maternity indicators and cost.

methodsA two-armed parallel RCT and concurrent social media survey were conducted. Women in the RCT were sampled from ONS birth registrations and randomised to either a paper or push-to-web survey. Women in the social media survey self-selected through online adverts. The primary outcome was response rate in the paper and push-to-web surveys. In all surveys, respondent representativeness was assessed by comparing distributions of sociodemographic characteristics in respondents with those of the target population. External validity of prevalence estimates of maternity indicators was assessed by comparing weighted survey estimates with estimates from national routine data. Cost was also compared across surveys.

resultsThe response rate was higher in the paper survey (n = 2,446) compared to the push-to-web survey (n = 2,165)(30.6% versus 27.1%, difference = 3.5%, 95%CI = 2.1-4.9, p < 0.0001). Compared to the target population, respondents in all surveys were less likely to be aged < 25 years, of Black or Minority ethnicity, born outside the UK, living in disadvantaged areas, living without a partner and primiparous. Women in the social media survey (n = 1,316) were less representative of the target population compared to women in the paper and push-to-web surveys. For some maternity indicators, weighted survey estimates were close to estimates from routine data, for other indicators there were discrepancies; no survey demonstrated consistently higher external validity than the other two surveys. Compared to the paper survey, the cost saving per respondent was £5.45 for the push-to-web survey and £22.42 for the social media survey.

conclusionsPush-to-web surveys may cost less than paper surveys but do not necessarily result in higher response rates. Social media surveys cost significantly less than paper and push-to-web surveys, but sample size may be limited by eligibility criteria and recruitment window and respondents may be less representative of the target population. However, reduced representativeness does not necessarily introduce more bias in weighted survey estimates.

Indexed as

Social MediaEthnicityFemaleHumansMinority GroupsParturitionPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesMaternityNon-response biasPregnancyQuestionnaireRandomised controlled trial (RCT)RepresentativenessResponse rateSamplingSelection biasSurveyWeighting

Identifiers

PMID36635637
PMCPMC9835028

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.