The use of online methods to recruit and follow a hard-to-reach population in the Peer Alternatives for Addiction Study 2021 Cohort.
addiction
alcohol
mutual‐help
online methods
recovery
Journal
Alcohol, clinical & experimental research
ISSN: 2993-7175
Titre abrégé: Alcohol Clin Exp Res (Hoboken)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918609780906676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Aug 2024
06 Aug 2024
Historique:
revised:
13
06
2024
received:
18
02
2024
accepted:
17
07
2024
medline:
7
8
2024
pubmed:
7
8
2024
entrez:
6
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Although studies are increasingly adopting online protocols, few such studies in the addiction field have comprehensively described their data review procedures and successes in detecting low-quality/fraudulent data. The current study describes data collection protocols and outcomes of a large, longitudinal study (the PAL Study 2021) that implemented online design elements to study individuals seeking peer support for an alcohol use disorder. In 2021, the PAL Study collaborated with mutual-help group (MHG) partners and recovery-related organizations to recruit individuals attending a 12-step group, Women for Sobriety (WFS), LifeRing Secular Recovery, and/or SMART Recovery for an alcohol problem in-person and/or online in the prior 30 days. Participation was solicited both online and in-person. Individuals accessed baseline surveys via an open web link; follow-ups occurred at 6 and 12 months. Analyses included calculating the proportion of surveys eliminated in data quality review; comparing MHG subsamples to internal survey (benchmark) data for Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), WFS, LifeRing, and SMART; and examining response rates and attrition. Although 93% of respondents who opened the baseline survey completed it, 87% of baseline surveys were eliminated in data quality review (final N = 531). Nonetheless, cleaned MHG subsamples were generally similar to benchmark samples on gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education. Follow-up rates for the cleaned sample were 88% (6 months) and 85% (12 months). Analyses revealed some differences in attrition by gender, primary MHG, and lifetime drug problems, but there was no evidence of greater attrition among those in earlier/less stable recovery. Study methods appear to have produced a valid, largely representative sample of the hard-to-reach target population that was successfully followed across 12 months. However, given the high survey elimination rate and need for extensive data review, we recommend that researchers avoid open-link designs and include comprehensive data review when incorporating online design elements.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although studies are increasingly adopting online protocols, few such studies in the addiction field have comprehensively described their data review procedures and successes in detecting low-quality/fraudulent data. The current study describes data collection protocols and outcomes of a large, longitudinal study (the PAL Study 2021) that implemented online design elements to study individuals seeking peer support for an alcohol use disorder.
METHODS
METHODS
In 2021, the PAL Study collaborated with mutual-help group (MHG) partners and recovery-related organizations to recruit individuals attending a 12-step group, Women for Sobriety (WFS), LifeRing Secular Recovery, and/or SMART Recovery for an alcohol problem in-person and/or online in the prior 30 days. Participation was solicited both online and in-person. Individuals accessed baseline surveys via an open web link; follow-ups occurred at 6 and 12 months. Analyses included calculating the proportion of surveys eliminated in data quality review; comparing MHG subsamples to internal survey (benchmark) data for Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), WFS, LifeRing, and SMART; and examining response rates and attrition.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Although 93% of respondents who opened the baseline survey completed it, 87% of baseline surveys were eliminated in data quality review (final N = 531). Nonetheless, cleaned MHG subsamples were generally similar to benchmark samples on gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education. Follow-up rates for the cleaned sample were 88% (6 months) and 85% (12 months). Analyses revealed some differences in attrition by gender, primary MHG, and lifetime drug problems, but there was no evidence of greater attrition among those in earlier/less stable recovery.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Study methods appear to have produced a valid, largely representative sample of the hard-to-reach target population that was successfully followed across 12 months. However, given the high survey elimination rate and need for extensive data review, we recommend that researchers avoid open-link designs and include comprehensive data review when incorporating online design elements.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIAAA NIH HHS
ID : P50AA005595
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAAA NIH HHS
ID : R01AA027266
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAAA NIH HHS
ID : R01AA027920
Pays : United States
Organisme : U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
ID : VA HSR&D RCS 00-001
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Research Society on Alcohol.
Références
Alcoholics Anonymous. (2022) Alcoholics anonymous 2022 membership survey. New York, NY: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc.
Ali, S.H., Foreman, J., Capasso, A., Jones, A.M., Tozan, Y. & Diclemente, R.J. (2020) Social media as a recruitment platform for a nationwide online survey of COVID‐19 knowledge, beliefs, and practices in the United States: methodology and feasibility analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20, 116.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition (DSM‐5). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Incorporated.
Atkins, R.G. & Hawdon, J.E. (2007) Religiosity and participation in mutual‐aid support groups for addiction. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33, 321–331.
Barratt, M.J., Ferris, J.A., Zahnow, R., Palamar, J.J., Maier, L.J. & Winstock, A.R. (2017) Moving on from representativeness: testing the utility of the global drug survey. Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment, 11, 1178221817716391.
Bauermeister, J.A., Pingel, E., Zimmerman, M., Couper, M., CarballO‐Diéguez, A. & Strecher, V.J. (2012) Data quality in HIV/AIDS web‐based surveys: handling invalid and suspicious data. Field Methods, 24, 272–291.
Borges, G., Zemore, S.E., Orozco, R., Cherpitel, C.J., Ye, Y., Bond, J. et al. (2015) Co‐occurrence of alcohol, drug use, DSM‐5 alcohol use disorder, and symptoms of drug use disorder on both sides of the U.S.‐Mexico border. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 39, 679–687.
Bowen, A.M., Daniel, C.M., Williams, M.L. & Baird, G.L. (2008) Identifying multiple submissions in internet research: preserving data integrity. AIDS and Behavior, 12, 964–973.
Curran, P.G. (2016) Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4–19.
Dawson, D.A., Grant, B.F., Stinson, F.S., Chou, P.S., Huang, B. & Ruan, W.J. (2005) Recovery from DSM‐IV alcohol dependence: United States, 2001–2002. Addiction, 100, 281–292.
Dennis, M.L., Foss, M.A. & Scott, C.K. (2007) An eight‐year perspective on the relationship between the duration of abstinence and other aspects of recovery. Evaluation Review, 31, 585–612.
DeSimone, J.A., Harms, P.D. & Desimone, A.J. (2015) Best practice recommendations for data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 171–181.
Dewitt, J., Capistrant, B., Kohli, N., Rosser, B.R.S., Mitteldorf, D., Merengwa, E. et al. (2018) Addressing participant validity in a small internet health survey (the restore study): protocol and recommendations for survey response validation. JMIR Research Protocols, 7, e96.
Dupuis, M., Meier, E. & Cuneo, F. (2019) Detecting computer‐generated random responding in questionnaire‐based data: a comparison of seven indices. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 2228–2237.
Eddie, D., White, W.L., Vilsaint, C.L., Bergman, B.G. & Kelly, J.F. (2021) Reasons to be cheerful: personal, civic, and economic achievements after resolving an alcohol or drug problem in the United States population. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 35, 402–414.
Gnambs, T. & Kaspar, K. (2015) Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across self‐administered survey modes: a meta‐analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1237–1259.
Godinho, A., Kushnir, V. & Cunningham, J.A. (2016) Unfaithful findings: identifying careless responding in addictions research. Addiction, 111, 955–956.
Godinho, A., Schell, C. & Cunningham, J.A. (2020) Out damn bot, out: recruiting real people into substance use studies on the internet. Substance Abuse, 41, 3–5.
Google Account Help. (2024) Your account is disabled. Available at: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/40695 [Accessed 2nd February 2024].
Jones, A., Earnest, J., Adam, M., Clarke, R., Yates, J. & Pennington, C.R. (2022) Careless responding in crowdsourced alcohol research: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of practices and prevalence. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 30, 381–399.
Kays, K., Gathercoal, K. & Buhrow, W. (2012) Does survey format influence self‐disclosure on sensitive question items? Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 251–256.
Kelly, J.F., Bergman, B., Hoeppner, B.B., Vilsaint, C. & White, W.L. (2017) Prevalence and pathways of recovery from drug and alcohol problems in the United States population: implications for practice, research, and policy. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 181, 162–169.
Kelly, J.F., Greene, M.C. & Bergman, B.G. (2018) Beyond abstinence: changes in indices of quality of life with time in recovery in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 42, 770–780.
Kelly, J.F., Greene, M.C., Bergman, B.G., White, W.L. & Hoeppner, B.B. (2019) How many recovery attempts does it take to successfully resolve an alcohol or drug problem? Estimates and correlates from a national study of recovering U.S. adults. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 43, 1533–1544.
Kelly, J.F., Levy, S., Matlack, M. & Hoeppner, B.B. (2023) Who affiliates with SMART recovery? A comparison of individuals attending SMART recovery, alcoholics anonymous, both, or neither. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 47, 1926–1942.
Kessler, R.C., Berglund, P., Chiu, W.T., Demler, O., Heeringa, S., Hiripi, E. et al. (2004) The US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS‐R): design and field procedures. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13(2), 69–92.
Kessler, R.C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K.R. & Walters, E.E. (2005) Lifetime prevalence and age‐of‐onset distributions of DSM‐IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 593–602.
King, D.B., O'rourke, N. & Delongis, A. (2014) Social media recruitment and online data collection: a beginner's guide and best practices for accessing low‐prevalence and hard‐to‐reach populations. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 55, 240–249.
Lawlor, J., Thomas, C., Guhin, A.T., Kenyon, K., Lerner, M.D. & Drahota, A. (2021) Suspicious and fraudulent online survey participation: introducing the REAL framework. Methodological Innovations, 14, 20597991211050467.
LifeRing Secular Recovery. (2013) LifeRing membership/participant survey: summer 2013. Available at: https://lifering.org/wp‐content/uploads/Public_Documents/Surveys/2013‐Survey.pdf [Accessed 2nd November 2024].
Litman, L., Robinson, J. & Rosenzweig, C. (2015) The relationship between motivation, monetary compensation, and data quality among US‐ and India‐based workers on mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 519–528.
Miller, P.G. & Sønderlund, A.L. (2010) Using the internet to research hidden populations of illicit drug users: a review. Addiction, 105, 1557–1567.
Moss, H.B., Chen, C.M. & Yi, H.‐Y. (2010) Prospective follow‐up of empirically derived alcohol dependence subtypes in wave 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on alcohol and the related conditions (NESARC): recovery status, alcohol use disorders and diagnostic criteria, alcohol consumption behavior, health status and treatment seeking. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 34, 1073–1083.
Palamar, J.J. & Acosta, P. (2020) On the efficacy of online drug surveys during the time of COVID‐19. Substance Abuse, 41, 283–285.
Pozzar, R., Hammer, M.J., Underhill‐Blazey, M., Wright, A.A., Tulsky, J.A., Hong, F. et al. (2020) Threats of bots and other bad actors to data quality following research participant recruitment through social media: cross‐sectional questionnaire. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22, e23021.
Pratt‐Chapman, M., Moses, J. & Arem, H. (2021) Strategies for the identification and prevention of survey fraud: data analysis of a web‐based survey. JMIR Cancer, 7, e30730.
Rubio, G., Esteban Rodríguez, L., Sion, A., RAMIS Vidal, L., Blanco, M.J., Zamora‐Bayon, A. et al. (2023) How, when, and to what degree do people with alcohol dependence recover their psychological wellbeing and quality of life? The Madrid recovery project. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1130078.
Saha, T.D., Compton, W.M., Chou, S.P., Smith, S., Ruan, W.J., Huang, B. et al. (2012) Analyses related to the development of DSM‐5 criteria for substance use related disorders 1. Toward amphetamine, cocaine, and prescription drug use disorder continua using item response theory. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 122, 38–46.
StataCorp. (2023) Stata statistical software: release 18. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.
Storozuk, A., Ashley, M., Delage, V. & Maloney, E.A. (2020) Got bots? Practical recommendations to protect online survey data from bot attacks. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16, 472–481.
Teitcher, J.E.F., Bockting, W.O., Bauermeister, J.A., Hoefer, C.J., Miner, M.H. & Klitzman, R.L. (2015) Detecting, preventing, and responding to “fraudsters” in internet research: ethics and tradeoffs. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of law, Medicine & Ethics, 43, 116–133.
Wang, J., Calderon, G., Hager, E.R., Edwards, L.V., Berry, A.A., Liu, Y. et al. (2023) Identifying and preventing fraudulent responses in online public health surveys: lessons learned during the COVID‐19 pandemic. PLOS Global Public Health, 3, e0001452.
World Health Organization. (1993) Composite international diagnostic interview: authorize Core version 1.1. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Zemore, S.E., Kaskutas, L.A., Mericle, A. & Hemberg, J. (2017) Comparison of 12‐step groups to mutual help alternatives for AUD in a large, national study: differences in membership characteristics and group participation, cohesion, and satisfaction. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 73, 16–26.
Zemore, S.E., Lui, C.K., Mericle, A., Hemberg, J. & Kaskutas, L.A. (2018) A longitudinal study of the comparative efficacy of women for sobriety, LifeRing, SMART recovery, and 12‐step groups for those with AUD. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 88, 18–26.