IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v242y2019ics0277953619305921.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing in person and internet methods to recruit low-SES populations for tobacco control policy research

Author

Listed:
  • Greiner Safi, Amelia
  • Reyes, Carolyn
  • Jesch, Emma
  • Steinhardt, Joseph
  • Niederdeppe, Jeff
  • Skurka, Christofer
  • Kalaji, Motasem
  • Scolere, Leah
  • Byrne, Sahara

Abstract

Tobacco use and the associated consequences are much more prevalent among low-SES populations in the U.S. However, tobacco-based research often does not include these harder-to-reach populations. This paper compares the effectiveness and drawbacks of three methods of recruiting low-SES adult smokers in the Northeast. From a 5-year, [funding blinded] grant about impacts of graphic warning labels on tobacco products, three separate means of recruiting low-SES adult smokers emerged: 1) in person in the field with a mobile lab vehicle, 2) in person in the field with tablet computers, and 3) online via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). We compared each of these methods in terms of the resulting participant demographics and the “pros” and “cons” of each approach including quality control, logistics, cost, and engagement. Field-based methods (with a mobile lab or in person with a tablet) yielded a greater proportion of disadvantaged participants who could be biochemically verified as current smokers—45% of the field-based sample had an annual income of <$10,000 compared to 16% of the MTurk sample; 40–45% of the field-based sample did not complete high school compared to 2.6% of the MTurk sample. MTurk-based recruitment was substantially less expensive to operate (1/14th the cost of field-based methods) was faster, and involved less logistical coordination, though was unable to provide immediate biochemical verification of current smoking status. Both MTurk and field-based methods provide access to low-SES participants–the difference is the proportion and the degree of disadvantage. For research and interventions where either inclusion considerations or external validity with low-SES populations is critical, especially the most disadvantaged, our research supports the use of field-based methods. It also highlights the importance of adequate funding and time to enable the recruitment and participation of these harder-to-reach populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Greiner Safi, Amelia & Reyes, Carolyn & Jesch, Emma & Steinhardt, Joseph & Niederdeppe, Jeff & Skurka, Christofer & Kalaji, Motasem & Scolere, Leah & Byrne, Sahara, 2019. "Comparing in person and internet methods to recruit low-SES populations for tobacco control policy research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:242:y:2019:i:c:s0277953619305921
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953619305921
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112597?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick, D.L. & Cheadle, A. & Thompson, D.C. & Diehr, P. & Koepsell, T. & Kinne, S., 1994. "The validity of self-reported smoking: A review and meta-analysis," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 84(7), pages 1086-1093.
    2. Noar, Seth M. & Francis, Diane B. & Bridges, Christy & Sontag, Jennah M. & Ribisl, Kurt M. & Brewer, Noel T., 2016. "The impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings: Systematic review of longitudinal observational studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 118-129.
    3. Thomas Klausch & Joop J. Hox & Barry Schouten, 2013. "Measurement Effects of Survey Mode on the Equivalence of Attitudinal Rating Scale Questions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(3), pages 227-263, August.
    4. Durkin, S.J. & Biener, L. & Wakefield, M.A., 2009. "Effects of different types of antismoking ads on reducing disparities in smoking cessation among socioeconomic subgroups," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(12), pages 2217-2223.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James F. Thrasher & Farahnaz Islam & Rachel E. Davis & Lucy Popova & Victoria Lambert & Yoo Jin Cho & Ramzi G. Salloum & Jordan Louviere & David Hammond, 2018. "Testing Cessation Messages for Cigarette Package Inserts: Findings from a Best/Worst Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, February.
    2. Kuehnle, Daniel, 2019. "How effective are pictorial warnings on tobacco products? New evidence on smoking behaviour using Australian panel data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Evans, Keith S. & Teisl, Mario F. & Lando, Amy. M. & Liu, Sherry T., 2020. "Risk perceptions and food-handling practices in the home," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    4. Durkin, Sarah & Bayly, Megan & Cotter, Trish & Mullin, Sandra & Wakefield, Melanie, 2013. "Potential effectiveness of anti-smoking advertisement types in ten low and middle income countries: Do demographics, smoking characteristics and cultural differences matter?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 204-213.
    5. Yvonne Laird & Fiona Myers & Garth Reid & John McAteer, 2019. "Tobacco Control Policy in Scotland: A Qualitative Study of Expert Views on Successes, Challenges and Future Actions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-12, July.
    6. Jennifer Cantrell & Donna M Vallone & James F Thrasher & Rebekah H Nagler & Shari P Feirman & Larry R Muenz & David Y He & Kasisomayajula Viswanath, 2013. "Impact of Tobacco-Related Health Warning Labels across Socioeconomic, Race and Ethnic Groups: Results from a Randomized Web-Based Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    7. P. Couper, Mick & Cernat, Alexandru & Beth Ofstedal, Mary, 2015. "Estimation of mode effects in the Health and Retirement Study using measurement models," ISER Working Paper Series 2015-19, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    8. Trinidad Beleche & Nellie Lew & Rosemarie L. Summers & J. Laron Kirby, 2018. "Are Graphic Warning Labels Stopping Millions of Smokers? A Comment on Huang, Chaloupka, and Fong," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 15(2), pages 129–157-1, May.
    9. Nakata, Akinori & Ikeda, Tomoko & Takahashi, Masaya & Haratani, Takashi & Hojou, Minoru & Fujioka, Yosei & Araki, Shunichi, 2006. "Non-fatal occupational injury among active and passive smokers in small- and medium-scale manufacturing enterprises in Japan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(9), pages 2452-2463, November.
    10. Mariliis Põld & Kersti Pärna, 2020. "Nicotine Dependence and Factors Related to Smoking Cessation among Physicians in Estonia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-10, May.
    11. Christine Eisenmann & Bastian Chlond & Clotilde Minster & Christian Jödden & Peter Vortisch, 2019. "Assessing the effects of a mixed-mode design in a longitudinal household travel survey," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1737-1753, October.
    12. Adrianna Bella & Temesgen Kifle & Kam Ki Tang, 2021. "Smoke gets in your shape: The effects of smoking on body weight in Indonesia," Discussion Papers Series 646, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    13. Anna Borawska & Tomasz Oleksy & Dominika Maison, 2020. "Do negative emotions in social advertising really work? Confrontation of classic vs. EEG reaction toward advertising that promotes safe driving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-20, May.
    14. Qing Wang & Jay J Shen & Michelle Sotero & Casey A Li & Zhiyuan Hou, 2018. "Income, occupation and education: Are they related to smoking behaviors in China?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Rosemary Avery & Donald Kenkel & Dean R. Lillard & Alan Mathios, 2007. "Private Profits and Public Health: Does Advertising of Smoking Cessation Products Encourage Smokers to Quit?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(3), pages 447-481.
    16. Sarah D Kowitt & Seth M Noar & Leah M Ranney & Adam O Goldstein, 2017. "Public attitudes toward larger cigarette pack warnings: Results from a nationally representative U.S. sample," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-14, March.
    17. Keyes, Katherine M. & Vo, Thomas & Wall, Melanie M. & Caetano, Raul & Suglia, Shakira F. & Martins, Silvia S. & Galea, Sandro & Hasin, Deborah, 2015. "Racial/ethnic differences in use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana: Is there a cross-over from adolescence to adulthood?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 132-141.
    18. DeCicca, Philip & Kenkel, Donald & Liu, Feng, 2013. "Excise tax avoidance: The case of state cigarette taxes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1130-1141.
    19. Michelle DiGiacomo & Patricia M. Davidson & Penelope A. Abbott & Joyce Davison & Louise Moore & Sandra C. Thompson, 2011. "Smoking Cessation in Indigenous Populations of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States: Elements of Effective Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-23, January.
    20. Johanna Catherine MacLean & Asia Sikora Kessler & Donald S. Kenkel, 2016. "Cigarette Taxes and Older Adult Smoking: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 424-438, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:242:y:2019:i:c:s0277953619305921. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.