Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36920469›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2023

Design and Implementation of the Surveys of Women: Protocol for an Address-Based Sampling Multimodal Study.

Stephanie Poland, Michael Stern, Ned English, Steven Pedlow, Katherine Archambeau, Kari Carris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Has the fall ofHealth affairs scholar · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Stephanie PolandNational Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3108-9154
Michael SternDepartment of Media & Information, College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5211-6978
Ned EnglishNational Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1945-6601
Steven PedlowNational Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0789-9579
Katherine ArchambeauNational Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9373-0739
Kari CarrisNational Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2366-3232

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies conducted in the United States such as the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) and the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) collect data on pregnancy intentions to aid in improving health education, services, and programs. PRAMS collects data from specific sites, and NSFG is a national household-based survey. Like NSFG, the Surveys of Women was designed to survey participants residing in households using an address-based sample and a multimode data collection approach. The Surveys of Women collects data from eligible participants in 9 states within the United States on contraception use, reproductive health, and pregnancy intentions. In this paper, we focus on the baseline data collection protocol, including sample design, data collection procedures, and data processing. We also include a brief discussion on the follow-up and endline survey methodologies. Our goal is to inform other researchers on methods to consider when fielding a household-level reproductive health survey.

objectiveThe Surveys of Women was developed to support state-specific research and evaluation projects, with an overall goal of understanding contraceptive health practices among women aged 18-44 years. The project collects data from respondents in 9 different states (Arizona, Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wisconsin) over multiple rounds.

methodsHouseholds were selected at random using address-based sampling methods. This project includes a cross-sectional baseline survey, 2 or 3 follow-up surveys with an opt-in panel of respondents, and a cross-sectional endline survey. Each round of data collection uses a multimode design through the use of a programmed web survey and a formatted hard copy questionnaire. Participants from the randomly selected households access their personalized surveys through a web survey or mail in a hard copy questionnaire. To maximize responses, these surveys follow a rigorous schedule of various prompts bolstering the survey implementation design, and the participants received a modest monetary incentive.

resultsThis is an ongoing project with results published separately by the evaluation teams involved with data analysis.

conclusionsThe methods used in the first baseline survey informed modifications to the methods used in subsequent statewide surveys. Data collected from this project will provide insight into women's reproductive health, contraceptive use, and abortion attitudes in the 9 selected states. The long-term goal of the project is to use a data collection methodology that collects data from a representative sample of participants to assess changes in reproductive health behaviors over time. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/40675.

Indexed as

contraceptioncontraceptive healthcross-sectionaldata collectiondata processingimplementationmethodsmultimodereproductive healthsurveysurvey methodsweb surveywomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID36920469
PMCPMC10131823

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.