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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Maria Neufeld & Carina Ferreira-Borges & Jürgen Rehm, 2020. "Implementing Health Warnings on Alcoholic Beverages: On the Leading Role of Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-20, November.
    4. Frank Stafford, 2009. "Emerging Modes of Timeline Data Collection: Event History Calendar Time Diary and Methods," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 69-76, August.
    5. Tineke Fokkema & Andrej Kveder & Nicole Hiekel & Tom Emery & Aart C. Liefbroer, 2016. "Generations and Gender Programme Wave 1 data collection," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 34(18), pages 499-524.
    6. 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).
    7. DeCicca, Philip & Kenkel, Don & Mathios, Alan, 2008. "Cigarette taxes and the transition from youth to adult smoking: Smoking initiation, cessation, and participation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 904-917, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Ana Balsa & Carlos Díaz, 2018. "Social interactions in health behaviors and conditions," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 1802, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
    10. Muxing Xie & Chunrong Jia & Yawei Zhang & Beibei Wang & Ning Qin & Suzhen Cao & Liyun Zhao & Dongmei Yu & Xiaoli Duan, 2020. "Household Exposure to Secondhand Smoke among Chinese Children: Status, Determinants, and Co-Exposures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-12, July.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Ashleigh Guillaumier & Billie Bonevski & Christine Paul & Catherine D’Este & Laura Twyman & Kerrin Palazzi & Christopher Oldmeadow, 2016. "Self-Exempting Beliefs and Intention to Quit Smoking within a Socially Disadvantaged Australian Sample of Smokers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Neneh Rowa-Dewar & Amanda Amos, 2016. "Disadvantaged Parents’ Engagement with a National Secondhand Smoke in the Home Mass Media Campaign: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-11, September.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. James Langenbucher & Jeffrey Merrill, 2001. "The Validity of Self-Reported Cost Events by Substance Abusers," Evaluation Review, , vol. 25(2), pages 184-210, April.
    20. Jun, Hee-Jin & Acevedo-Garcia, Dolores, 2007. "The effect of single motherhood on smoking by socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 653-666, August.

    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.