ArticlePloS one2025
A national study of substance use: Demonstrated use of recommendations for best practice online data collection.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cannabis use within the United States: Prevalence of cannabis use by state legal status and perceptions of benefit and harm.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.