A mixed methods analysis of participation in a social contact survey.
Epidemic modelling
Focus groups
Infectious disease
Mixed methods
Research engagement
Social contact surveys
Journal
Epidemics
ISSN: 1878-0067
Titre abrégé: Epidemics
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101484711
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2022
12 2022
Historique:
received:
28
01
2022
revised:
28
07
2022
accepted:
21
09
2022
pubmed:
2
10
2022
medline:
15
12
2022
entrez:
1
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Social contact survey data forms a core component of modern epidemic models: however, there has been little assessment of the potential biases in such data. We conducted focus groups with university students who had (n = 13) and had never (n = 14) completed a social contact survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative findings were explored quantitatively by analysing participation data. The opportunity to contribute to COVID-19 research, to be heard and feel useful were frequently reported motivators for participating in the contact survey. Reductions in survey engagement following lifting of COVID-19 restrictions may have occurred because the research was perceived to be less critical and/or because the participants were busier and had more contacts. Having a high number of contacts to report, uncertainty around how to report each contact, and concerns around confidentiality were identified as factors leading to inaccurate reporting. Focus groups participants thought that financial incentives or provision of study results would encourage participation. Incentives could improve engagement with social contact surveys. Qualitative research can inform the format, timing, and wording of surveys to optimise completion and accuracy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Social contact survey data forms a core component of modern epidemic models: however, there has been little assessment of the potential biases in such data.
METHODS
We conducted focus groups with university students who had (n = 13) and had never (n = 14) completed a social contact survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative findings were explored quantitatively by analysing participation data.
RESULTS
The opportunity to contribute to COVID-19 research, to be heard and feel useful were frequently reported motivators for participating in the contact survey. Reductions in survey engagement following lifting of COVID-19 restrictions may have occurred because the research was perceived to be less critical and/or because the participants were busier and had more contacts. Having a high number of contacts to report, uncertainty around how to report each contact, and concerns around confidentiality were identified as factors leading to inaccurate reporting. Focus groups participants thought that financial incentives or provision of study results would encourage participation.
CONCLUSIONS
Incentives could improve engagement with social contact surveys. Qualitative research can inform the format, timing, and wording of surveys to optimise completion and accuracy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36182804
pii: S1755-4365(22)00075-5
doi: 10.1016/j.epidem.2022.100635
pmc: PMC7615368
mid: EMS190907
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
100635Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC/PC/19067
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 222770/Z/21/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 217509/Z/19/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest HC is a principal investigator on a grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to this research. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Références
Epidemiology. 2019 Sep;30(5):723-736
pubmed: 31274572
Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Jun 26;280(1765):20131037
pubmed: 23804621
BMJ Open. 2019 Jan 15;9(1):e024224
pubmed: 30647042
Epidemiol Infect. 2006 Dec;134(6):1158-66
pubmed: 16707031
Elife. 2021 Nov 25;10:
pubmed: 34821551
J R Soc Interface. 2008 Sep 6;5(26):1001-7
pubmed: 18319209
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Mar 10;16(3):e78
pubmed: 24613818
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2006 Aug 14;3:10
pubmed: 16907980
Epidemics. 2016 Jun;15:38-55
pubmed: 27266848
JMIR Form Res. 2021 Oct 28;5(10):e31086
pubmed: 34586078
PLoS Med. 2008 Mar 25;5(3):e74
pubmed: 18366252
Clin Trials. 2011 Feb;8(1):85-93
pubmed: 21163854
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 01;10(9):e0136497
pubmed: 26325289
Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Apr 30;281(1785):20140268
pubmed: 24789897
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 15;9(8):e104786
pubmed: 25127257
Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Jul 22;264(1384):949-57
pubmed: 9263464
BMC Infect Dis. 2009 Nov 27;9:187
pubmed: 19943919
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 25;9(11):e113711
pubmed: 25423343
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 11;7(1):7974
pubmed: 28801623
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017 Apr 07;3(2):e18
pubmed: 28389417
J Pediatr. 1981 Jul;99(1):100-3
pubmed: 7252646
J Hyg (Lond). 1985 Jun;94(3):365-436
pubmed: 4008922
PLoS Med. 2022 Mar 1;19(3):e1003907
pubmed: 35231023
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 09;9(12):e114925
pubmed: 25490045