Web Survey Bibliography
Background: Many speak of the digital divide, but variation in the opportunity of patients to use the Internet for health (patient eHealth readiness) is not a binary difference, rather a distribution influenced by personal capability, provision of services, support, and cost. Digital divisions in health have been addressed by various initiatives, but there was no comprehensive validated measure to know if they are effective that could be used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) covering both non-Internet-users and the range of Internet-users.
Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a self-completed questionnaire and scoring system to assess patient eHealth readiness by examining the spread of scores and eHealth inequalities. The intended use of this questionnaire and scores is in RCTs of interventions aiming to improve patient eHealth readiness and reduce eHealth inequalities.
Methods: Based on four factors identified from the literature, a self-completed questionnaire, using a pragmatic combination of factual and attitude questions, was drafted and piloted in three stages. This was followed by a final population-based, cross-sectional household survey of 344 people used to refine the scoring system.
Results: The Patient eHealth Readiness Questionnaire (PERQ) includes questions used to calculate four subscores: patients’ perception of (1) provision, (2) their personal ability and confidence, (3) their interpersonal support, and (4) relative costs in using the Internet for health. These were combined into an overall PERQ score (0-9) which could be used in intervention studies. Reduction in standard deviation of the scores represents reduction in eHealth inequalities.
Conclusions: PERQ appears acceptable for participants in British studies. The scores produced appear valid and will enable assessment of the effectiveness of interventions to improve patient eHealth readiness and reduce eHealth inequalities. Such methods need continued evolution and redevelopment for other environments. Full documentation and data have been published to allow others to develop the tool further.
Journal Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Web survey bibliography (286)
- Paradata as an aide to questionnaire design: Improving quality and reducing burden; 2017; Timm, E.; Stewart, J.; Sidney, I.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.
- Using Mixed Methods to Research the Professional Development Needs of English Teacher Educators in PCET...; 2017; Eliahoo, R.
- The Failure of the Polls: Lessons Learned from the 2015 UK Polling Disaster; 2017; Sturgis, P.
- Web based health surveys: Using a Two Step Heckman model to examine their potential for population health...; 2016; Morrissey, K.; Kinderman, P.; Pontin, E.; Tai, S.; Schwannauer, M.
- Fieldwork Effort, Response Rate, and the Distribution of Survey Outcomes: A Multilevel Meta-analysis; 2016; Sturgis, P.; Williams, Jo.; Brunton-Smith, I.; Moore, J.
- Gamifying. Not all fun and games; 2016; Stubington, P.; Crichton, C.
- Are interviews costing £0.08 a waste of money? Reviewing Google Surveys for Wisdom of the Crowd...; 2016; Roughton, G.; MacKay, I.
- Observations from Twelve Years of an Annual Market Research Technology Survey; 2016; Macer, T.; Wilson, S.
- FocusVision 2015 Annual MR Technology Report; 2016; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- Last Year Your Answer Was … The Impact of Dependent Interviewing Wording and Survey Factors on...; 2016; Al Baghal, T.
- Gamifying Questions Using Text Alone; 2016; Cape, P. J.
- Eye-tracking Social Desirability Bias; 2016; Kaminska, O.; Foulsham, T.
- Assessing targeted approach letters: effects in different modes on response rates, response speed and...; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Report of the Inquiry into the 2015 British general election opinion polls; 2016; Sturgis, P., Baker, N., Callegaro, M., Fisher, St., Green, J., Jennings, W., Kuha, J., Lauderdale, B...
- The Validity of Surveys: Online and Offline; 2016; Wiersma, W.
- Revisiting “yes/no” versus “check all that apply”: Results from a mixed modes...; 2016; Nicolaas, G.; Campanelli, P.; Hope, S.; Jaeckle, A.; Lynn, P.
- Adapting Labour Force Survey questions from interviewer-administered modes for web self-completion in...; 2015; Betts, P.; Cubbon, B.
- Recent Books and Journals Articles in Public Opinion, Survey Methods, Survey Statistics, and Big Data...; 2015; Callegaro, M.
- Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment...; 2015; Boerger, T.
- Using equivalence testing to disentangle selection and measurement in mixed modes surveys ; 2015; Cernat, A.
- Polling Error in the 2015 UK General Election: An Analysis of YouGov’s Pre and Post-Election Polls...; 2015; Wells, A.; Rivers, D.
- The Cathie Marsh lecture: What does the failure of the polls tell us about the future of survey research...; 2015; Sturgis, P., Matheson, J.
- Understanding Society Innovation Panel Wave 7: Results from Methodological Experiments; 2015; Blom, A. G.; Burton, J.; Booker, C. L.; Cernat, A.; Fairbrother, M.; Jaeckle, A.; Kaminska, O.; Keusch...
- Email subject lines and response rates to invitations to participate in a web survey and a face-to-face...; 2015; Sappleton, N.; Lourenco, F.
- Validity of Internet-Based Longitudinal Study Data: The Elephant in the Virtual Room; 2015; Pugh, C. A.; Summers, K. M.; Bronsvoort, M. C.; Handel, I. G.; Clements, D. N.
- Challenges with Online Research for Couples and Families: Evaluating Nonrespondents and the Differential...; 2015; Busby, D. M.; Yoshida, Ke.
- Gamification in market research: Increasing enjoyment, participant engagement and richness of data,...; 2015; Bailey, P.; Pritchard, G.; Kernohan, H.
- Going Online with a Face-to-Face Household Panel: Effects of a Mixed Mode Design on Item and Unit Non...; 2015; Burton, J.; Jaeckle, A.; Lynn, P.
- Adapting an interviewer - administered survey for web self - completion in a mixed - mode design ; 2015; Betts, P.; Cubbon, B.
- Technology and Reporting of Daily Activities – Considerations for Analysis of Behaviours in Mixed...; 2015; Fisher, K.; Gershuny, J.
- Measurement Error in Discontinuous Online Survey Panels: Panel Conditioning and Data Quality; 2015; Atkeson, L. R.; Adams, A. N.; Karp, J. A.
- The importance of scale direction between different modes; 2015; Agalioti-sgompou, V.
- The effect of response formats on data quality and comparability across online PC and smartphone surveys...; 2015; Cleary, A.; Allum, N.; Kolbas, V.
- A web-based survey of United Kingdom sedation practice in the intensive care unit; 2015; Yassin, S. M., Yassin, J., Terblanche, M., McKenzie, C. A.
- The Use of Cognitive Interviewing Methods to Evaluate Mode Effects in Survey Questions; 2014; Gray, M., Blake, M., Campanelli, P.
- FocusVision 2014 Annual MR Technology Report; 2014; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- Do your own online surveys. DYI and self serve market research; 2014; Cary, N.
- Nonprobability Web Surveys to Measure Sexual Behaviors and Attitudes in the General Population: A Comparison...; 2014; Erens, B.; Burkill, S.; Couper, M. P.; C., Clifton, S., Tanton, C., Phelps, A., Datta, J., Mercer,...
- 640 Current trends in management of high-risk prostate cancer in Europe: Results of a web-based survey...; 2014; Briganti, A., Isbarn, H., Ost, P., Ploussard, G., Sooriakumaran, P., Van Den Bergh, R.C.N., Van Oort...
- Is Vague Valid? The Comparative Predictive Validity of Vague Quantifiers and Numeric Response Options...; 2014; Al Baghal, T.
- Improving Survey Response Rates in Online Panels Effects of Low-Cost Incentives and Cost-Free Text Appeal...; 2014; Pedersen, M. J., Nielsen, C. V.
- The role of email addresses and email contact in encouraging web response in a mixed mode design ; 2014; Cernat, A., Lynn, P.
- Mixed-mode surveys of the general population - Results from the European Social Survey mixed-mode experiment...; 2014; Park, A., Humphrey, A.
- Measurement effects between CAPI and Web questionnaires in the UK Household Longitudinal Study; 2014; Lynn, P., Vannieuwenhuyze, J. T. A.
- Role of mode in respondents’ decisions to participate in IP5: findings from a qualitative follow...; 2014; Collins, D., Mitchell, Ma.
- Understanding Society Innovation Panel Wave 6: results from methodological experiments; 2014; Allum, N., Auspurg, K., Blake, M., Booker, C. L., Crossley, T. F., D'ardenne, J., Fairbrother, M., Iacovou...
- The untold story of multi-mode (online and mail) consumer panels; 2014; McCutcheon, A. L., Rao, K., Kaminska, O.
- A critical review of studies investigating the quality of data obtained with online panels based on...; 2014; Callegaro, M., Villar, A., Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A.
- Recent Books and Journals in Public Opinion, Survey Methods, and Survey Statistics; 2014; Callegaro, M.