IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v47y2018i2p314-348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of a Nonprobability Internet Panel to Monitor Sexual and Reproductive Health in the General Population

Author

Listed:
  • Stéphane Legleye
  • Géraldine Charrance
  • Nicolas Razafindratsima
  • Nathalie Bajos
  • Aline Bohet
  • Caroline Moreau

Abstract

Background: Reliability of nonprobability online volunteer panels for epidemiological purposes has rarely been studied. Objectives: To assess the quality of a questionnaire on sexual and reproductive health (SRH) administered in a nonprobability Web panel and in a random telephone survey ( n = 8,992; n = 8,437, age 16–49 years). Especially, we were interested in the possible difference in the association of sociodemographic variables and some outcome variables in the two surveys that are in the reliability of analytical epidemiological studies conducted in such panels. Methods: Interventions to increase response rate were used in both surveys (four e-mail reminders, high number of call attempts and callbacks to refusals). Both were calibrated on the census population. Sociodemographic composition, effects of reminders, and prevalence were compared to their telephone counterpart. In addition, the associations of sociodemographic and sexual behaviors were compared in the two samples in multivariate logistic regressions. Results: The online survey had a lower response rate (20.0 percent vs. 44.8 percent) and a more distorted sociodemographic structure although the reminders improved the representativeness as did the analogous interventions on the telephone survey. Prevalences of SRH variables were similar for the common behaviors but higher online for the stigmatized behaviors, depending on gender. Overall, 29 percent of the 63 interactions studied were significant for males and 11 percent for women, although opposite effects of sociodemographic variables were rare (5 percent of the 171 tested for each gender). Conclusion: Nonprobability online panels are to be used with caution to monitor SRH and conduct analytical epidemiological studies, especially among men.

Suggested Citation

  • Stéphane Legleye & Géraldine Charrance & Nicolas Razafindratsima & Nathalie Bajos & Aline Bohet & Caroline Moreau, 2018. "The Use of a Nonprobability Internet Panel to Monitor Sexual and Reproductive Health in the General Population," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 47(2), pages 314-348, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:47:y:2018:i:2:p:314-348
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124115621333
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124115621333
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124115621333?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthias Schonlau & Arthur Van Soest & Arie Kapteyn, 2007. "Are 'Webographic' or Attitudinal Questions Useful for Adjusting Estimates From Web Surveys Using Propensity Scoring?," Working Papers 506, RAND Corporation.
    2. Matthias Schonlau & Arthur van Soest & Arie Kapteyn & Mick Couper, 2009. "Selection Bias in Web Surveys and the Use of Propensity Scores," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 291-318, February.
    3. Matthias Schonlau & Arthur Van Soest & Arie Kapteyn, 2007. "Are 'Webographic' or Attitudinal Questions Useful for Adjusting Estimates From Web Surveys Using Propensity Scoring?," Working Papers WR-506, RAND Corporation.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:371-388 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Richard Valliant & Jill A. Dever, 2011. "Estimating Propensity Adjustments for Volunteer Web Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 105-137, February.
    2. repec:aia:aiaswp:wp76 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ramón Ferri-García & María del Mar Rueda, 2022. "Variable selection in Propensity Score Adjustment to mitigate selection bias in online surveys," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 63(6), pages 1829-1881, December.
    4. Luis Castro-Martín & Maria del Mar Rueda & Ramón Ferri-García, 2020. "Inference from Non-Probability Surveys with Statistical Matching and Propensity Score Adjustment Using Modern Prediction Techniques," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Buil-Gil, David & Solymosi, Reka & Moretti, Angelo, 2019. "Non-parametric bootstrap and small area estimation to mitigate bias in crowdsourced data. Simulation study and application to perceived safety," SocArXiv 8hgjt, Center for Open Science.
    6. Sunghee Lee & Richard Valliant, 2009. "Estimation for Volunteer Panel Web Surveys Using Propensity Score Adjustment and Calibration Adjustment," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 319-343, February.
    7. Guzi, Martin & de Pedraza, Pablo, 2013. "A Web Survey Analysis of the Subjective Well-being of Spanish Workers," IZA Discussion Papers 7618, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Crossley, Thomas F. & Fisher, Paul & Low, Hamish, 2021. "The heterogeneous and regressive consequences of COVID-19: Evidence from high quality panel data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    9. Heng Chen & Geoffrey Dunbar & Q. Rallye Shen, 2020. "The Mode is the Message: Using Predata as Exclusion Restrictions to Evaluate Survey Design," Advances in Econometrics, in: Essays in Honor of Cheng Hsiao, volume 41, pages 341-357, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    10. Hildebrand Sean, 2015. "Coerced Confusion? Local Emergency Policy Implementation After September 11," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 273-298, June.
    11. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Simon, Lisa & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "Can Online Surveys Represent the Entire Population?," IZA Discussion Papers 11799, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Knox, Melissa A. & Oddo, Vanessa M. & Walkinshaw, Lina Pinero & Jones-Smith, Jessica, 2020. "Is the public sweet on sugary beverages? Social desirability bias and sweetened beverage taxes," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    13. van Soest, A.H.O. & Kapteyn, A., 2009. "Mode and Context Effects of Measuring Household Assets," Other publications TiSEM e01ebd42-2ed0-4f2c-b408-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Magdalena Smyk & Joanna Tyrowicz & Lucas van der Velde, 2021. "A Cautionary Note on the Reliability of the Online Survey Data: The Case of Wage Indicator," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(1), pages 429-464, February.
    15. Arthur van Soest & Arie Kapteyn, 2009. "Mode and Context Effects in Measuring Household Assets," Working Papers 200949, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    16. Fiore, M. & Gaviglio, A. & Demartini, E. & La Sala, P., 2018. "Sugarcoating Food Technologies and consumers’ acceptance of long-life fish," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275971, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Joel Martin & Michael Toczko & Emily Locke & Ryan McCarthy & Italia Milani & Nathalie Barrios & Samer Koutoubi & Jatin Ambegaonkar & Niyati Dhokai & Ali Boolani, 2022. "Influence of Grit on Physical Activity, Sitting Time and Dietary Behaviors: A Multi-Study Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Dewaele Alexis & Caen Maya & Buysse Ann, 2014. "Comparing Survey and Sampling Methods for Reaching Sexual Minority Individuals in Flanders," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 30(2), pages 251-251, June.
    19. Almut Schumann & Detlev Lück, 2023. "Better to ask online when it concerns intimate relationships? Survey mode differences in the assessment of relationship quality," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 48(22), pages 609-640.
    20. Joanne W. Hsu & Brooke H. McFall, 2015. "Mode effects in mixed-mode economic surveys: Insights from a randomized experiment," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2015-8, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    21. Fabo, B., 2017. "Towards an understanding of job matching using web data," Other publications TiSEM b8b877f2-ae6a-495f-b6cc-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    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:sae:somere:v:47:y:2018:i:2:p:314-348. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.