Integrating community perspectives to improve survey completion rates in public health research by refining controversial survey elements.

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2025-04-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2025.80
Arleth A Escoto, Angel Lomeli, Maria Linda Burola, Breanna Reyes, Ana Perez-Portillo, Scarlet Flores, Kayleigh Kornher, Norma Porras, Ariel Cohen, Linda Salgin, Borsika A Rabin, Louise C Laurent, Marva Seifert, Nicole A Stadnick
{"title":"Integrating community perspectives to improve survey completion rates in public health research by refining controversial survey elements.","authors":"Arleth A Escoto, Angel Lomeli, Maria Linda Burola, Breanna Reyes, Ana Perez-Portillo, Scarlet Flores, Kayleigh Kornher, Norma Porras, Ariel Cohen, Linda Salgin, Borsika A Rabin, Louise C Laurent, Marva Seifert, Nicole A Stadnick","doi":"10.1017/cts.2025.80","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many factors can impact survey completion rates, including survey length, sensitivity of the topics addressed, and clarity of wording. This study used cognitive interviews (CIs), a methodological tool that can aid in developing and refining elements for multi-faceted assessments, and previous survey response patterns to refine, streamline, and increase response rates of RADx-UP Common Data Elements (CDEs) for survey/questionnaire use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten previously enrolled CO-CREATE study participants were interviewed between May-June 2023. Interviewees identified CDEs that were \"confusing, uncomfortable, and/or not applicable,\" along with their reasoning. Interview data were analyzed using a rapid qualitative analytic approach, resulting in a summary matrix categorized by language. For further contextualization, CDE response rates were calculated for the 9147 surveys administered during the CO-CREATE study (May 2021-March 2023) and compared against their survey position.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 94 CDEs evaluated in the CIs, 20 (21.3%) were flagged by one or more interviewees. Nine (9.6%) English while fourteen (14.9%) Spanish CDEs were flagged by interviewees, with some overlap. Also, CDE response rates differed according to position in the survey, with lower response rates for questions positioned later in the survey. Following review by the research team and the RADx-UP program, 10 English and 15 Spanish were revised, and seven were removed in both languages in the final survey.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings underscore the importance of integrating community member perspectives to enhance the relevance and clarity of assessment instruments, optimizing the impact of public health research among underrepresented populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e123"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12209967/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.80","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many factors can impact survey completion rates, including survey length, sensitivity of the topics addressed, and clarity of wording. This study used cognitive interviews (CIs), a methodological tool that can aid in developing and refining elements for multi-faceted assessments, and previous survey response patterns to refine, streamline, and increase response rates of RADx-UP Common Data Elements (CDEs) for survey/questionnaire use.

Methods: Ten previously enrolled CO-CREATE study participants were interviewed between May-June 2023. Interviewees identified CDEs that were "confusing, uncomfortable, and/or not applicable," along with their reasoning. Interview data were analyzed using a rapid qualitative analytic approach, resulting in a summary matrix categorized by language. For further contextualization, CDE response rates were calculated for the 9147 surveys administered during the CO-CREATE study (May 2021-March 2023) and compared against their survey position.

Results: Of the 94 CDEs evaluated in the CIs, 20 (21.3%) were flagged by one or more interviewees. Nine (9.6%) English while fourteen (14.9%) Spanish CDEs were flagged by interviewees, with some overlap. Also, CDE response rates differed according to position in the survey, with lower response rates for questions positioned later in the survey. Following review by the research team and the RADx-UP program, 10 English and 15 Spanish were revised, and seven were removed in both languages in the final survey.

Conclusion: Our findings underscore the importance of integrating community member perspectives to enhance the relevance and clarity of assessment instruments, optimizing the impact of public health research among underrepresented populations.

通过提炼有争议的调查要素,整合社区观点,提高公共卫生研究中的调查完成率。
背景:许多因素可以影响调查完成率,包括调查长度、主题的敏感性和措辞的清晰度。本研究使用认知访谈(ci),一种可以帮助开发和改进多方面评估元素的方法工具,以及以前的调查响应模式来改进、简化和提高RADx-UP公共数据元素(CDEs)的回复率,用于调查/问卷使用。方法:在2023年5月至6月期间对10名先前入组的CO-CREATE研究参与者进行访谈。受访者指出,cde“令人困惑、不舒服和/或不适用”,并给出了他们的理由。访谈数据采用快速定性分析方法进行分析,得出按语言分类的汇总矩阵。为了进一步的背景化,计算了CO-CREATE研究期间(2021年5月至2023年3月)进行的9147次调查的CDE应答率,并与他们的调查位置进行了比较。结果:在ci评估的94个cde中,20个(21.3%)被一个或多个受访者标记。9个(9.6%)英语和14个(14.9%)西班牙语的cde被受访者标记,有一些重叠。此外,CDE的回复率根据调查中位置的不同而不同,在调查中位置较晚的问题的回复率较低。经过研究小组和RADx-UP项目的审查,在最后的调查中修改了10份英语和15份西班牙语,并在两种语言中删除了7份。结论:我们的研究结果强调了整合社区成员观点的重要性,以提高评估工具的相关性和清晰度,优化公共卫生研究在代表性不足人群中的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信