Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39107089›Full record

ArticleAlcohol, clinical & experimental research2024

The use of online methods to recruit and follow a hard-to-reach population in the Peer Alternatives for Addiction Study 2021 Cohort.

Sarah E Zemore, Joanne Delk, Amy A Mericle, Priscilla Martinez, Christine Timko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alcohol, clinical & experimental research, 2024. 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. 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

5 authors.

Sarah E ZemoreAlcohol Research Group, Emeryville, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3437-3169
Joanne DelkAlcohol Research Group, Emeryville, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1778-7415
Amy A MericleAlcohol Research Group, Emeryville, California, USA.
Priscilla MartinezAlcohol Research Group, Emeryville, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6797-1632
Christine TimkoStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

TREND &STRUCTURE OF ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE--GENERAL POPULATION 1990 SURVEY DATAP50AA005595 · NIAAA · WESTERN CONSORTIUM FOR PUBLIC HEALTH · PI MULIA, NINA · 1985 to 2025
$34.1M
Recovery Definitions and Behavior Change Processes in Recovery outside of TreatmentR01AA027266 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI GILBERT, PAUL A., ZEMORE, SARAH E. · 2019 to 2023
$2.3M
Mutual Help Alternatives for Alcohol Problems: Benefits and Causal MechanismsR01AA027920 · NIAAA · PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE · PI ZEMORE, SARAH E. · 2020 to 2023
$1.4M
NIAAA NIH HHS P50 AA005595NIAAA NIH HHS P50AA005595NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA027266NIAAA NIH HHS R01AA027266NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA027920NIAAA NIH HHS R01AA027920U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs VA HSR&D RCS 00-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough studies are increasingly adopting online protocols, few such studies in the addiction field have comprehensively described their data review procedures and successes in detecting low-quality/fraudulent data. The current study describes data collection protocols and outcomes of a large, longitudinal study (the PAL Study 2021) that implemented online design elements to study individuals seeking peer support for an alcohol use disorder.

methodsIn 2021, the PAL Study collaborated with mutual-help group (MHG) partners and recovery-related organizations to recruit individuals attending a 12-step group, Women for Sobriety (WFS), LifeRing Secular Recovery, and/or SMART Recovery for an alcohol problem in-person and/or online in the prior 30 days. Participation was solicited both online and in-person. Individuals accessed baseline surveys via an open web link; follow-ups occurred at 6 and 12 months. Analyses included calculating the proportion of surveys eliminated in data quality review; comparing MHG subsamples to internal survey (benchmark) data for Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), WFS, LifeRing, and SMART; and examining response rates and attrition.

resultsAlthough 93% of respondents who opened the baseline survey completed it, 87% of baseline surveys were eliminated in data quality review (final N = 531). Nonetheless, cleaned MHG subsamples were generally similar to benchmark samples on gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education. Follow-up rates for the cleaned sample were 88% (6 months) and 85% (12 months). Analyses revealed some differences in attrition by gender, primary MHG, and lifetime drug problems, but there was no evidence of greater attrition among those in earlier/less stable recovery.

conclusionsStudy methods appear to have produced a valid, largely representative sample of the hard-to-reach target population that was successfully followed across 12 months. However, given the high survey elimination rate and need for extensive data review, we recommend that researchers avoid open-link designs and include comprehensive data review when incorporating online design elements.

Indexed as

addictionalcoholmutual‐helponline methodsrecovery

Identifiers

PMID39107089
PMCPMC11576241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.