J Korean Med Sci.  2020 Nov;35(45):e398. 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e398.

Reporting Survey Based Studies – a Primer for Authors

• Gaur PS
• Zimba O
• Agarwal V
• Gupta L

• KMID: 2508806
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e398

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a massive rise in survey-based research. The paucity of perspicuous guidelines for conducting surveys may pose a challenge to the conduct of ethical, valid and meticulous research. The aim of this paper is to guide authors aiming to publish in scholarly journals regarding the methods and means to carry out surveys for valid outcomes. The paper outlines the various aspects, from planning, execution and dissemination of surveys followed by the data analysis and choosing target journals. While providing a comprehensive understanding of the scenarios most conducive to carrying out a survey, the role of ethical approval, survey validation and pilot testing, this brief delves deeper into the survey designs, methods of dissemination, the ways to secure and maintain data anonymity, the various analytical approaches, the reporting techniques and the process of choosing the appropriate journal. Further, the authors analyze retracted survey-based studies and the reasons for the same. This review article intends to guide authors to improve the quality of survey-based research by describing the essential tools and means to do the same with the hope to improve the utility of such studies.

Keyword

Pandemics; Data Analysis; Publishing; Surveys and Questionnaires; Periodicals as Topic

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Algorithm for a survey construct.

• 

  Fig. 2 Retraction of survey-based studies. (A) Geographic distribution, (B) Common causes.

Reference

1. Ball HL. Conducting online surveys. J Hum Lact. 2019; 35(3):413–417. PMID: 31084575.

2. Gupta L, Muhammed H, Naveen R, Kharbanda R, Gangadharan H, Misra DP, et al. Insights into the knowledge, attitude and practices for the treatment of idiopathic inflammatory myopathy from a cross-sectional cohort survey of physicians. Rheumatol Int. 2020; 40:2047–2055. PMID: 32880031.

3. Jones TL, Baxter MA, Khanduja V. A quick guide to survey research. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2013; 95(1):5–7. PMID: 23317709.

4. Gupta L, Lilleker J, Agarwal V, Chinoy H, Agarwal R.COVID-19 and myositis- unique challenges for patients. Rheumatology (Oxford). Forthcoming 2020. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa610.

5. Davis RE, Couper MP, Janz NK, Caldwell CH, Resnicow K. Interviewer effects in public health surveys. Health Educ Res. 2010; 25(1):14–26. PMID: 19762354.

6. Schweigman KP, Fabsitz RR, Sorlie P, Welty TK. Respondent bias in the collection of alcohol and tobacco data in American Indians: the Strong Heart Study. Am Indian Alsk Native Ment Health Res. 2000; 9(3):1–19.

7. Wantland DJ, Portillo CJ, Holzemer WL, Slaughter R, McGhee EM. The effectiveness of Web-based vs. non-Web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6(4):e40. PMID: 15631964.

8. Mahon-Haft TA, Dillman DA. Does visual appeal matter? Effects of web survey aesthetics on survey quality. Surv Res Methods. 2010; 4(1):43–59.

9. Connor Desai S, Reimers S. Comparing the use of open and closed questions for Web-based measures of the continued-influence effect. Behav Res Methods. 2019; 51(3):1426–1440. PMID: 29943224.

10. Indian Council of Medical Research. National ethical guidelines for biomedical and health research involving human participants. Updated 2020. Accessed September 24, 2020. https://ethics.ncdirindia.org//asset/pdf/ICMR_National_Ethical_Guidelines.pdf.

11. Ye H, Cheng X, Yuan M, Xu L, Gao J, Cheng C, et al. A survey of security and privacy in big data. In : 16th International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies (ISCIT), Qingdao; Piscataway, NJ; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 2016. p. 268–272.

12. Rossman H, Keshet A, Shilo S, Gavrieli A, Bauman T, Cohen O, et al. A framework for identifying regional outbreak and spread of COVID-19 from one-minute population-wide surveys. Nat Med. 2020; 26(5):634–638. PMID: 32273611.

13. Gewin V. Safely conducting essential research in the face of COVID-19. Nature. 2020; 580(7804):549–550. PMID: 32246121.

14. Jeon J, Kim H, Yu KS. The impact of COVID-19 on the conduct of clinical trials for medical products in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2020; 35(36):e329. PMID: 32924344.

15. Farley-Ripple EN, Oliver K, Boaz A. Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2020; 7(1):83.

16. van Teijlingen E, Hundley V. The importance of pilot studies. Nurs Stand. 2002; 16(40):33–36.

17. Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003; 15(3):261–266. PMID: 12803354.

18. Gupta L, Misra DP, Agarwal V, Balan S, Agarwal V. Management of rheumatic diseases in the time of covid-19 pandemic: perspectives of rheumatology practitioners from India. Ann Rheum Dis. Forthcoming 2020. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217509.

19. Choi IS, Choi EY, Lee IH. Challenges in informed consent decision-making in Korean clinical research: a participant perspective. PLoS One. 2019; 14(5):e0216889. PMID: 31120918.

20. Teisl MF, Roe B, Vayda ME. Incentive effects on response rates, data quality, and survey administration costs. Int J Public Opin Res. 2006; 18(3):364–373.

21. Garg PK. Financial incentives to reviewers: double-edged sword. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(6):832–833.

22. Schaeffer NC, Dykema J. Questions for surveys: current trends and future directions. Public Opin Q. 2011; 75(5):909–961. PMID: 24970951.

23. Moore DW. Measuring new types of question-order effects. Public Opin Q. 2002; 66(1):80–91.

24. Yan T, Tourangeau R. Fast times and easy questions: the effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2008; 22(1):51–68.

25. Burchell B, Marsh C. The effect of questionnaire length on survey response. Qual Quant. 1992; 26(3):233–244.

26. Krause N. A comprehensive strategy for developing closed-ended survey items for use in studies of older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2002; 57(5):S263–74. PMID: 12198106.

27. Weller SC, Vickers B, Bernard HR, Blackburn AM, Borgatti S, Gravlee CC, et al. Open-ended interview questions and saturation. PLoS One. 2018; 13(6):e0198606. PMID: 29924873.

28. Tourangeau R, Sun H, Conrad FG, Couper MP. Examples in open-ended survey questions. Int J Public Opin Res. 2017; 29(4):690–702.

29. Younas A, Porr C. A step-by-step approach to developing scales for survey research. Nurse Res. 2018; 26(3):14–19.

30. Gheita TA, Salem MN, Eesa NN, Khalil NM, Gamal NM, Noor RA, et al. Rheumatologists' practice during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a survey in Egypt. Rheumatol Int. 2020; 40(10):1599–1611. PMID: 32710198.

31. Schaeffer NC, Presser S. The science of asking questions. Annu Rev Sociol. 2003; 29(1):65–88.

32. Dolnicar S. Asking good survey questions. J Travel Res. 2013; 52(5):551–574.

33. Bidari A, Ghavidel-Parsa B, Amir Maafi A, Montazeri A, Ghalehbaghi B, Hassankhani A, et al. Validation of fibromyalgia survey questionnaire and polysymptomatic distress scale in a Persian population. Rheumatol Int. 2015; 35(12):2013–2019. PMID: 26581782.

34. Shah CH, Brown JD. Reliability and validity of the short-form 12 item version 2 (SF-12v2) health-related quality of life survey and disutilities associated with relevant conditions in the U.S. older adult population. J Clin Med. 2020; 9(3):661.

35. Agarwal V, Gupta L, Davalbhakta S, Misra DP, Agarwal V, Goel A. Prevalent fears and inadequate understanding of COVID-19 among medical undergraduates in India: results of a web-based survey. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2020; 50(3):343–350.

36. Gendall P. The effect of covering letter personalisation in mail surveys. Int J Mark Res. 2005; 47(4):365–380.

37. Christensen AI, Lynn P, Tolstrup JS. Can targeted cover letters improve participation in health surveys? Results from a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19(1):151. PMID: 31315577.

38. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ. 2002; 324(7347):1183. PMID: 12016181.

39. Porter SR, Whitcomb ME. The impact of lottery incentives on student survey response rates. Res Higher Educ. 2003; 44(4):389–407.

40. Carpenter EH. Personalizing mail surveys: a replication and reassessment. Public Opin Q. 1974; 38(4):614–620.

41. Yu J, Cooper H. A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires. J Mark Res. 1983; 20(1):36–44.

42. Cheung KL, Ten Klooster PM, Smit C, de Vries H, Pieterse ME. The impact of non-response bias due to sampling in public health studies: a comparison of voluntary versus mandatory recruitment in a Dutch national survey on adolescent health. BMC Public Health. 2017; 17(1):276. PMID: 28330465.

43. Sheikh K, Mattingly S. Investigating non-response bias in mail surveys. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1981; 35(4):293–296. PMID: 6461711.

44. Jooste PL, Yach D, Steenkamp HJ, Botha JL, Rossouw JE. Drop-out and newcomer bias in a community cardiovascular follow-up study. Int J Epidemiol. 1990; 19(2):284–289. PMID: 2376438.

45. Keusch F. Why do people participate in web surveys? Applying survey participation theory to internet survey data collection. MRQ. 2015; 65(3):183–216.

46. Roszkowski MJ, Bean AG. Believe it or not! longer questionnaires have lower response rates. J Bus Psychol. 1990; 4(4):495–509.

47. Mindell JS, Tipping S, Pickering K, Hope S, Roth MA, Erens B. The effect of survey method on survey participation: analysis of data from the Health Survey for England 2006 and the Boost Survey for London. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010; 10(1):83. PMID: 20868527.

48. Svensson M, Svensson T, Hansen AW, Trolle Lagerros Y. The effect of reminders in a web-based intervention study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2012; 27(5):333–340. PMID: 22531973.

49. Haldule S, Davalbhakta S, Agarwal V, Gupta L, Agarwal V. Post-publication promotion in rheumatology: a survey focusing on social media. Rheumatol Int. 2020; 40(11):1865–1872. PMID: 32920728.

50. Ahmed S, Gupta L. Perception about social media use by rheumatology journals: Survey among the attendees of IRACON 2019. Indian J Rheumatol. 2020; 15(3):171–174.

51. Goel A, Gupta L. Social media in the times of COVID-19. J Clin Rheumatol. 2020; 26(6):220–223. PMID: 32852927.

52. Kavadichanda GC, Gupta L, Balan S. Tuberculosis is a significant problem in children on biologics for rheumatic illnesses: results from a survey conducted among practicing rheumatologists in India. Indian J Rheumatol. 2020; 15(2):130–133.

53. Agarwal V, Sharma S, Gupta L, Misra D, Davalbhakta S, Agarwal V, et al. COVID-19 and psychological disaster preparedness - an unmet need. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. Forthcoming 2020. DOI: 10.1017/dmp.2020.219.

54. Davalbhakta S, Advani S, Kumar S, Agarwal V, Bhoyar S, Fedirko E, et al. A systematic review of smartphone applications available for corona virus disease 2019 (COVID19) and the assessment of their quality using the mobile application rating scale (MARS). J Med Syst. 2020; 44(9):164. PMID: 32779002.

55. Gupta L, Gasparyan AY, Misra DP, Agarwal V, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M. Information and Misinformation on COVID-19: a cross-sectional survey study. J Korean Med Sci. 2020; 35(27):e256. PMID: 32657090.

56. Koker O, Demirkan FG, Kayaalp G, Cakmak F, Tanatar A, Karadag SG, et al. Does immunosuppressive treatment entail an additional risk for children with rheumatic diseases? A survey-based study in the era of COVID-19. Rheumatol Int. 2020; 40(10):1613–1623. PMID: 32743705.

57. Mehta P, Gupta L. Combined case record forms for collaborative datasets of patients and controls of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Indian J Rheumatol. Forthcoming 2020. DOI: 10.4103/injr.injr_56_20.

58. Kharbanda R, Naveen R, Misra DP, Agarwal V, Gupta L. Combined case record forms for collating obstetric outcomes in rare rheumatic diseases. Indian J Rheumatol. Forthcoming 2020. DOI: 10.4103/injr.injr_102_20.

59. Gupta L, Appani SK, Janardana R, Muhammed H, Lawrence A, Amin S, et al. Meeting report: MyoIN – Pan-India collaborative network for myositis research. Indian J Rheumatol. 2019; 14(2):136–142.

60. Kennickell A, Lane J. Measuring the impact of data protection techniques on data utility: evidence from the survey of consumer finances. In : Domingo-Ferrer J, Franconi L, editors. Privacy in Statistical Databases. PSD 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4302. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer;2006. p. 291–303.

61. Colbert CY, Diaz-Guzman E, Myers JD, Arroliga AC. How to interpret surveys in medical research: a practical approach. Cleve Clin J Med. 2013; 80(7):423–435. PMID: 23821685.

62. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet e-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6(3):e34. PMID: 15471760.

63. Eysenbach G, Wyatt J. Using the internet for surveys and health research. J Med Internet Res. 2002; 4(2):E13. PMID: 12554560.

64. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Gerasimov AN, Kostyukova EI, Kitas GD. Preserving the integrity of citations and references by all stakeholders of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(11):1545–1552. PMID: 26538996.

65. Gasparyan AY. Choosing the target journal: do authors need a comprehensive approach? J Korean Med Sci. 2013; 28(8):1117–1119. PMID: 23960434.

66. Rivera H. Fake peer review and inappropriate authorship are real evils. J Korean Med Sci. 2018; 34(2):e6. PMID: 30636943.

67. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact. Croat Med J. 2014; 55(1):61–72. PMID: 24577829.