ArticlePloS one2024
Mixed methods approach to examining the implementation experience of a phone-based survey for a SARS-CoV-2 test-negative case-control study in California.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the implementation of a test-negative design case-control study in California during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. STUDY
designTest-negative case-control study.
methodsBetween February 24, 2021 - February 24, 2022, a team of 34 interviewers called 38,470 Californians, enrolling 1,885 that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases) and 1,871 testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls) for 20-minute telephone survey. We estimated adjusted odds ratios for answering the phone and consenting to participate using mixed effects logistic regression. We used a web-based anonymous survey to compile interviewer experiences.
resultsCases had 1.29-fold (95% CI: 1.24-1.35) higher adjusted odds of answering the phone and 1.69-fold (1.56-1.83) higher adjusted odds of consenting to participate compared to controls. Calls placed from 4pm to 6pm had the highest adjusted odds of being answered. Some interviewers experienced mental wellness challenges interacting with participants with physical (e.g., food, shelter, etc.) and emotional (e.g., grief counseling) needs, and enduring verbal harassment from individuals called.
conclusionsCalls placed during afternoon hours may optimize response rate when enrolling controls to a case-control study during a public health emergency response. Proactive check-ins and continual collection of interviewer experience(s) and may help maintain mental wellbeing of investigation workforce. Remaining adaptive to the dynamic needs of the investigation team is critical to a successful study, especially in emergent public health crises, like that represented by the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.