↓ Skip to main content

The impact of self-interviews on response patterns for sensitive topics: a randomized trial of electronic delivery methods for a sexual behaviour questionnaire in rural South Africa

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impact of self-interviews on response patterns for sensitive topics: a randomized trial of electronic delivery methods for a sexual behaviour questionnaire in rural South Africa
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0403-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guy Harling, Dumile Gumede, Tinofa Mutevedzi, Nuala McGrath, Janet Seeley, Deenan Pillay, Till W. Bärnighausen, Abraham J. Herbst

Abstract

Self-interviews, where the respondent rather than the interviewer enters answers to questions, have been proposed as a way to reduce social desirability bias associated with interviewer-led interviews. Computer-assisted self-interviews (CASI) are commonly proposed since the computer programme can guide respondents; however they require both language and computer literacy. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of using electronic methods to administer quantitative sexual behaviour questionnaires in the Somkhele demographic surveillance area (DSA) in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. We conducted a four-arm randomized trial of paper-and-pen-interview, computer-assisted personal-interview (CAPI), CASI and audio-CASI with an age-sex-urbanicity stratified sample of 504 adults resident in the DSA in 2015. We compared respondents' answers to their responses to the same questions in previous surveillance rounds. We also conducted 48 cognitive interviews, dual-coding responses using the Framework approach. Three hundred forty (67%) individuals were interviewed and covariates and participation rates were balanced across arms. CASI and audio-CASI were significantly slower than interviewer-led interviews. Item non-response rates were higher in self-interview arms. In single-paper meta-analysis, self-interviewed individuals reported more socially undesirable sexual behaviours. Cognitive interviews found high acceptance of both self-interviews and the use of electronic methods, with some concerns that self-interview methods required more participant effort and literacy. Electronic data collection methods, including self-interview methods, proved feasible and acceptable for completing quantitative sexual behaviour questionnaires in a poor, rural South African setting. However, each method had both benefits and costs, and the choice of method should be based on context-specific criteria.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 35 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 21%
Social Sciences 16 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Psychology 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 37 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2021.
All research outputs
#5,560,876
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#784
of 2,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,176
of 318,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#18
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.