The Use of Online Methods to Recruit and Follow a Hard-to-reach Population in the Peer Alternatives for Addiction Study 2021 Cohort

Overview

Journal Alcohol Clin Exp Res (Hoboken)

Specialty Psychiatry

Date 2024 Aug 6

PMID 39107089

Authors

Sarah E Zemore

Joanne Delk

Amy A Mericle

Priscilla Martinez

Christine Timko

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Although studies are increasingly adopting online protocols, few such studies in the addiction field have comprehensively described their data review procedures and successes in detecting low-quality/fraudulent data. The current study describes data collection protocols and outcomes of a large, longitudinal study (the PAL Study 2021) that implemented online design elements to study individuals seeking peer support for an alcohol use disorder.

Methods: In 2021, the PAL Study collaborated with mutual-help group (MHG) partners and recovery-related organizations to recruit individuals attending a 12-step group, Women for Sobriety (WFS), LifeRing Secular Recovery, and/or SMART Recovery for an alcohol problem in-person and/or online in the prior 30 days. Participation was solicited both online and in-person. Individuals accessed baseline surveys via an open web link; follow-ups occurred at 6 and 12 months. Analyses included calculating the proportion of surveys eliminated in data quality review; comparing MHG subsamples to internal survey (benchmark) data for Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), WFS, LifeRing, and SMART; and examining response rates and attrition.

Results: Although 93% of respondents who opened the baseline survey completed it, 87% of baseline surveys were eliminated in data quality review (final N = 531). Nonetheless, cleaned MHG subsamples were generally similar to benchmark samples on gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education. Follow-up rates for the cleaned sample were 88% (6 months) and 85% (12 months). Analyses revealed some differences in attrition by gender, primary MHG, and lifetime drug problems, but there was no evidence of greater attrition among those in earlier/less stable recovery.

Conclusions: Study methods appear to have produced a valid, largely representative sample of the hard-to-reach target population that was successfully followed across 12 months. However, given the high survey elimination rate and need for extensive data review, we recommend that researchers avoid open-link designs and include comprehensive data review when incorporating online design elements.

References

Barratt M, Ferris J, Zahnow R, Palamar J, Maier L, Winstock A . Moving on From Representativeness: Testing the Utility of the Global Drug Survey. Subst Abuse. 2017; 11:1178221817716391. PMC: 5595253. DOI: 10.1177/1178221817716391. View

Kelly J, Greene M, Bergman B, White W, Hoeppner B . How Many Recovery Attempts Does it Take to Successfully Resolve an Alcohol or Drug Problem? Estimates and Correlates From a National Study of Recovering U.S. Adults. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2019; 43(7):1533-1544. PMC: 6602820. DOI: 10.1111/acer.14067. View

Kelly J, Levy S, Matlack M, Hoeppner B . Who affiliates with SMART recovery? A comparison of individuals attending SMART recovery, alcoholics anonymous, both, or neither. Alcohol Clin Exp Res (Hoboken). 2023; 47(10):1926-1942. PMC: 10605873. DOI: 10.1111/acer.15164. View

Ali S, Foreman J, Capasso A, Jones A, Tozan Y, DiClemente R . Social media as a recruitment platform for a nationwide online survey of COVID-19 knowledge, beliefs, and practices in the United States: methodology and feasibility analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020; 20(1):116. PMC: 7220591. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01011-0. View

Gnambs T, Kaspar K . Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across self-administered survey modes: a meta-analysis. Behav Res Methods. 2014; 47(4):1237-1259. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-014-0533-4. View

Pratt-Chapman M, Moses J, Arem H . Strategies for the Identification and Prevention of Survey Fraud: Data Analysis of a Web-Based Survey. JMIR Cancer. 2021; 7(3):e30730. PMC: 8325077. DOI: 10.2196/30730. View

Dennis M, Foss M, Scott C . An eight-year perspective on the relationship between the duration of abstinence and other aspects of recovery. Eval Rev. 2007; 31(6):585-612. DOI: 10.1177/0193841X07307771. View

Litman L, Robinson J, Rosenzweig C . The relationship between motivation, monetary compensation, and data quality among US- and India-based workers on Mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods. 2014; 47(2):519-28. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-014-0483-x. View

Atkins Jr R, Hawdon J . Religiosity and participation in mutual-aid support groups for addiction. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007; 33(3):321-31. PMC: 2095128. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2007.07.001. View

10.

Kelly J, Greene M, Bergman B . Beyond Abstinence: Changes in Indices of Quality of Life with Time in Recovery in a Nationally Representative Sample of U.S. Adults. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2018; 42(4):770-780. PMC: 5880708. DOI: 10.1111/acer.13604. View

11.

Godinho A, Kushnir V, Cunningham J . Unfaithful findings: identifying careless responding in addictions research. Addiction. 2015; 111(6):955-6. DOI: 10.1111/add.13221. View

12.

Wang J, Calderon G, Hager E, Edwards L, Berry A, Liu Y . Identifying and preventing fraudulent responses in online public health surveys: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023; 3(8):e0001452. PMC: 10446196. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001452. View

13.

Godinho A, Schell C, Cunningham J . Out damn bot, out: Recruiting real people into substance use studies on the internet. Subst Abus. 2019; 41(1):3-5. DOI: 10.1080/08897077.2019.1691131. View

14.

Zemore S, Lui C, Mericle A, Hemberg J, Kaskutas L . A longitudinal study of the comparative efficacy of Women for Sobriety, LifeRing, SMART Recovery, and 12-step groups for those with AUD. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2018; 88:18-26. PMC: 5884451. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.02.004. View

15.

Dupuis M, Meier E, Cuneo F . Detecting computer-generated random responding in questionnaire-based data: A comparison of seven indices. Behav Res Methods. 2018; 51(5):2228-2237. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1103-y. View

16.

Borges G, Zemore S, Orozco R, Cherpitel C, Ye Y, Bond J . Co-occurrence of alcohol, drug use, DSM-5 alcohol use disorder, and symptoms of drug use disorder on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015; 39(4):679-87. PMC: 4384182. DOI: 10.1111/acer.12672. View

17.

Saha T, Compton W, Chou S, Smith S, Ruan W, Huang B . Analyses related to the development of DSM-5 criteria for substance use related disorders: 1. Toward amphetamine, cocaine and prescription drug use disorder continua using Item Response Theory. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011; 122(1-2):38-46. PMC: 3272309. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.09.004. View

18.

Kelly J, Bergman B, Hoeppner B, Vilsaint C, White W . Prevalence and pathways of recovery from drug and alcohol problems in the United States population: Implications for practice, research, and policy. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017; 181:162-169. PMC: 6076174. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.028. View

19.

Zemore S, Kaskutas L, Mericle A, Hemberg J . Comparison of 12-step groups to mutual help alternatives for AUD in a large, national study: Differences in membership characteristics and group participation, cohesion, and satisfaction. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2016; 73:16-26. PMC: 5193234. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2016.10.004. View

20.

Dawson D, Grant B, Stinson F, Chou P, Huang B, Ruan W . Recovery from DSM-IV alcohol dependence: United States, 2001-2002. Addiction. 2005; 100(3):281-92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00964.x. View