Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37705919›Full record

ReviewPublic opinion quarterly2023

Ethical Considerations for Augmenting Surveys with Auxiliary Data Sources.

Bella Struminskaya, Joseph W Sakshaug

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Public opinion quarterly, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

Bella StruminskayaAssociate Professor, Department of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5944-8163
Joseph W SakshaugDistinguished Researcher, Department of Statistical Methods, Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany; and Professor, Department of Statistics, Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Survey researchers frequently use supplementary data sources, such as paradata, administrative data, and contextual data to augment surveys and enhance substantive and methodological research capabilities. While these data sources can be beneficial, integrating them with surveys can give rise to ethical and data privacy issues that have not been completely resolved. In this research synthesis, we review ethical considerations and empirical evidence on how privacy concerns impact participation in studies that collect these novel data sources to supplement surveys. We further discuss potential approaches for safeguarding participants' data privacy during data collection and dissemination that may assuage their concerns. Finally, we conclude with open questions and suggested avenues for future research.

Identifiers

PMID37705919
PMCPMC10496569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.