Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40837855›Full record

ArticleSurvey practice2025

Can I Interview Her? Gatekeeping in a Telephone Survey of Female Migrants in India.

Sharan Sharma, Bijay Chouhan, O P Sharma, Jaya Koti, Sonalde Desai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Survey practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Sharan SharmaUniversity of Maryland, College Park.
Bijay ChouhanNational Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.
O P SharmaNational Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.
Jaya KotiNational Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.
Sonalde DesaiUniversity of Maryland, College Park.

Funding

INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT SURVEYR01HD041455 · NICHD · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI DESAI, SONALDE B. · 2003 to 2023
$11.0M
Sci-Tech Core-Maryland Population Research CenterP2CHD041041 · NICHD · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI Susan W Parker · 2018 to 2026
$3.9M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041041NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD041455
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper explores 'gatekeeping', the phenomenon where access to a sample person in the household is controlled by another person. Gatekeeping of female persons is especially an issue in societies governed by gendered social norms. It can increase survey error by reducing response rates and potentially increasing non-response bias, and can increase measurement error when gatekeepers insist on providing proxy responses. We contribute to the sparse literature on gatekeeping by using data from a telephone survey of migrants in India and focusing on the sample of female married-out migrants. We estimate the prevalence of gatekeeping, compare outcomes of calls made to gatekept versus non-gatekept cases, and model the likelihood of a proxy interview. We estimate that gatekeeping of females in telephone surveys is in the range of 56%-65%, with gatekept calls much more likely to result in proxy interviews. We find that older and more-educated women are less subject to gatekeeping and that male and married interviewers are associated with a greater likelihood of gatekeeping. We discuss implications of these results for survey practice.

Indexed as

CATIcross-cultural reseachgatekeepingIndiainterviewer effectsLMICphone surveysproxy responses

Identifiers

PMID40837855
PMCPMC12362564

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.