IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v65y2007i4p782-791.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-mediated research in the field of health: An integrated review of the literature

Author

Listed:
  • Whitehead, Lisa Claire

Abstract

The advantages and disadvantages of using the Internet in both qualitative and quantitative researches in the field of health are readily available in the literature, but little examination has been made of the factors to be considered in developing and running Internet-mediated research. A bibliographic search of English language publications indexed in eight computerized databases (EBSCO, EMBASE, MedLine, PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane, and TRIP) was undertaken with no limit set for the data of publication. The keywords Internet, research, quality, credibility, reliability, and validity were used in all possible combinations, and mappings to headings made wherever possible. The search revealed three key areas in setting up and undertaking Internet-mediated research: addressing sampling biases, ensuring ethical practice, and exploring the validity of data collected using an online interface. This paper contributes to the ongoing development of quality standards in the conduct and write-up of Internet-mediated research in the field of health.

Suggested Citation

  • Whitehead, Lisa Claire, 2007. "Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-mediated research in the field of health: An integrated review of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 782-791, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:4:p:782-791
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00118-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Michael Birnbaum, 2000. "Psychological experiments on the internet," Framed Field Experiments 00125, The Field Experiments Website.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hiba Bawadi & Sara Elshami & Ahmed Awaisu & Ghadir Fakhri Al-Jayyousi & Shuja Ashfaq & Banan Mukhalalati, 2023. "A review of technical and quality assessment considerations of audio-visual and web-conferencing focus groups in qualitative health research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Hui‐Lin Cheng & Xian‐Liang Liu & Rui‐Xue Bi & Lan‐Fang Liu & Simon Ching Lam, 2020. "Two versions of perspectives on caring for older patients scale: Translation and psychometric testing among Chinese nursing students," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 903-912, December.

    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. Jean-Marc Bourgeon & José de Sousa & Alexis Noir-Luhalwe, 2022. "Social Distancing and Risk Taking: Evidence from a Team Game Show [Distanciation sociale et prise de risque : Les résultats d'un jeu d'équipe]," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03792423, HAL.
    2. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "The Effect of Numerical Statements of Risk on Trust and Comfort with Hypothetical Physician Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 265-271, June.
    3. Zev J. Eigen, 2012. "When and Why Individuals Obey Contracts: Experimental Evidence of Consent, Compliance, Promise, and Performance," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(1), pages 67-93.
    4. R. Luce & A. Marley, 2005. "Ranked Additive Utility Representations of Gambles: Old and New Axiomatizations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 21-62, January.
    5. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    6. Claire I. Tsai & Min Zhao & Dilip Soman, 2022. "Salient knowledge that others are also evaluating reduces judgment extremity," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 366-387, March.
    7. Pochun, Tej & Brennan, Linda & Parker, Lukas, 2018. "Advertising effects? An elemental experiment," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 338-349.
    8. Andrea Gurmankin Levy & John C. Hershey, 2008. "Value-Induced Bias in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(2), pages 269-276, March.
    9. Sebastian Neumann-Böhme & Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2021. "Trust me; I know what I am doing investigating the effect of choice list elicitation and domain-relevant training on preference reversals in decision making for others," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 679-697, July.
    10. Christopher Peterson & Nansook Park & Martin Seligman, 2005. "Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: the full life versus the empty life," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 25-41, March.
    11. Adam Cohen, 2002. "The Importance of Spirituality in Well-Being for Jews and Christians," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 287-310, September.
    12. Charness, Gary & Haruvy, Ernan & Sonsino, Doron, 2007. "Social distance and reciprocity: An Internet experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 88-103, May.
    13. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    14. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    15. Gurmankin Levy, Andrea & Hershey, John C., 2006. "Distorting the probability of treatment success to justify treatment decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 52-58, September.
    16. Doron Sonsino & Radosveta Ivanova-Stenzel, 2006. "Experimental internet auctions with random information retrieval," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(4), pages 323-341, December.
    17. Uriel Haran & Ilana Ritov & Barbara A. Mellers, 2013. "The role of actively open-minded thinking in information acquisition, accuracy, and calibration," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 188-201, May.
    18. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "Intended Message Versus Message Received in Hypothetical Physician Risk Communications: Exploring the Gap," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1347, October.
    19. Uriel Haran, 2013. "A Person--Organization Discontinuity in Contract Perception: Why Corporations Can Get Away with Breaking Contracts But Individuals Cannot," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(12), pages 2837-2853, December.
    20. Dmitri Vinogradov & Yousef Makhlouf, 2017. "Signaling Probabilities in Ambiguity: on the impact of vague news," Working Papers 2017_12, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.

    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:65:y:2007:i:4:p:782-791. 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.