Evidence mapPaperPMID 41212908Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

A national study of substance use: Demonstrated use of recommendations for best practice online data collection.

Andrew P Bontemps, Bailey E Pridgen, William P Wagner, Karen L Cropsey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrew P BontempsDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1902-3045
Bailey E PridgenDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
William P WagnerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
Karen L CropseyDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6921-3440

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSince the COVID-19 pandemic, more researchers have used to online data collection to recruit participants to research studies. However, one perceived limitation of online data collection is a belief that it results in lower quality data due to the introduction of bots or misrepresentation by participants to qualify for study compensation. The current study demonstrates that following recommendations for online data collection results in quick collection of a high-quality, diverse, multi-state sample.

methodsThe current study followed recommendations for best practice, advertising on social media sites combined with investigator-implemented (e.g., splash page, attention checks, use of physical payment) and built-in Qualtrics tools (e.g., IP tracking, CAPTCHA) to collect data from participants who use substances from 15 states within the United States examining cannabis use and perceptions of harm reduction interventions (HRIs).

resultsBefore cleaning, 3,642 participants completed the screener across 172 days of survey up-time. After cleaning, the final sample included 639 responses in the final cannabis survey, and 1,137 responses in the final HRI survey including 264 participants completing both surveys. The study yielded approximately 8.8 cleaned surveys per day and a usable data rate of 60.3% for participants who completed the cannabis survey only, 72.4% for participants who completed the HRI survey only, and 72.6% for participants who completed both.

conclusionsWhile every method of data collection has strengths and weaknesses, when implemented using appropriate tools to prevent completion of surveys by non-valid participants, internet-based data collection methods can provide researchers with relatively low-cost, high-quality samples.

Indexed as

Data CollectionSubstance-Related DisordersAdolescentAdultCOVID-19FemaleHarm ReductionHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2Social MediaSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41212908
PMCPMC12599918

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.