A mixed methods analysis of participation in a social contact survey

  1. Emily Nixon
  2. Taru Silvonen
  3. Antoine Barreaux
  4. Rachel Kwiatkowska
  5. Adam Trickey
  6. Amy Thomas
  7. Becky Ali
  8. Georgia Treneman-Evans
  9. Hannah Christensen
  10. Ellen Brooks-Pollock
  11. Sarah Denford

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.epidem.2022.100635
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.28.22270006v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.28.22270006: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Those willing to take part were asked to consent to participate via an online “tick box.
    IRB: Ethics: Ethical approval was obtained from the Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee at the University of Bristol (application reference number 116774).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All analyses were completed using R version 4.0.4, other than the analysis on one-time participants versus repeat participants which were completed using STATA version 16.1.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Strengths and limitations of this study: To our knowledge, this is the first mixed-methods evaluation of a social contact survey. The aim was to explore facilitators and barriers to completing the CONQUEST survey, highlight biases in our data that might not be immediately obvious, and identify ways to improve survey participation, data completeness and accuracy. CONQUEST was designed with the Bristol university population in mind and focuses on data collection to inform the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We appreciate that our findings may not be generalisable to other contact surveys or student populations, though we believe that several observations may be useful in other contexts. The utility of this study is limited by the small number of focus groups, which restricted the range of views that could be captured. The demographic profile of our focus groups was not entirely representative of CONQUEST participants, who in turn were more likely to be female and white than the wider student population. Our results may therefore not reflect the views and behaviours of the average student at the university. Despite efforts to recruit a diverse sample of students, focus group participants and CONQUEST participants are self-selected and motivated to take part in research and our results must be interpreted with this in mind. For the quantitative analysis of the time of day the survey was completed, we did not know the location of participants when they were completing the surve...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.28.22270006v1 on medRxiv