IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v65y2007i4p782-791.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-mediated research in the field of health: An integrated review of the literature

Author

Listed:
  • Whitehead, Lisa Claire

Abstract

The advantages and disadvantages of using the Internet in both qualitative and quantitative researches in the field of health are readily available in the literature, but little examination has been made of the factors to be considered in developing and running Internet-mediated research. A bibliographic search of English language publications indexed in eight computerized databases (EBSCO, EMBASE, MedLine, PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane, and TRIP) was undertaken with no limit set for the data of publication. The keywords Internet, research, quality, credibility, reliability, and validity were used in all possible combinations, and mappings to headings made wherever possible. The search revealed three key areas in setting up and undertaking Internet-mediated research: addressing sampling biases, ensuring ethical practice, and exploring the validity of data collected using an online interface. This paper contributes to the ongoing development of quality standards in the conduct and write-up of Internet-mediated research in the field of health.

Suggested Citation

  • Whitehead, Lisa Claire, 2007. "Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-mediated research in the field of health: An integrated review of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 782-791, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:4:p:782-791
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00118-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Birnbaum, 2000. "Psychological experiments on the internet," Framed Field Experiments 00125, The Field Experiments Website.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hiba Bawadi & Sara Elshami & Ahmed Awaisu & Ghadir Fakhri Al-Jayyousi & Shuja Ashfaq & Banan Mukhalalati, 2023. "A review of technical and quality assessment considerations of audio-visual and web-conferencing focus groups in qualitative health research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Hui‐Lin Cheng & Xian‐Liang Liu & Rui‐Xue Bi & Lan‐Fang Liu & Simon Ching Lam, 2020. "Two versions of perspectives on caring for older patients scale: Translation and psychometric testing among Chinese nursing students," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 903-912, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zev J. Eigen, 2012. "When and Why Individuals Obey Contracts: Experimental Evidence of Consent, Compliance, Promise, and Performance," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(1), pages 67-93.
    2. R. Luce & A. Marley, 2005. "Ranked Additive Utility Representations of Gambles: Old and New Axiomatizations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 21-62, January.
    3. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    4. Claire I. Tsai & Min Zhao & Dilip Soman, 2022. "Salient knowledge that others are also evaluating reduces judgment extremity," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 366-387, March.
    5. Sebastian Neumann-Böhme & Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2021. "Trust me; I know what I am doing investigating the effect of choice list elicitation and domain-relevant training on preference reversals in decision making for others," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 679-697, July.
    6. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    7. Gurmankin Levy, Andrea & Hershey, John C., 2006. "Distorting the probability of treatment success to justify treatment decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 52-58, September.
    8. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "Intended Message Versus Message Received in Hypothetical Physician Risk Communications: Exploring the Gap," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1347, October.
    9. Sonsino, Doron & Sirota, Julia, 2003. "Strategic pattern recognition--experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 390-411, August.
    10. Buchanan, Erin Michelle & Foreman, Riley E. & Huber, Becca Nicole & Pavlacic, Jeffrey Michael & Swadley, Rachel N. & Schulenberg, Stefan E., 2017. "Does the Delivery Matter? Examining Randomization at the Item Level," OSF Preprints p93df, Center for Open Science.
    11. Choi, Hojoon & Reid, Leonard N., 2016. "Congruity effects and moderating influences in nutrient-claimed food advertising," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3430-3438.
    12. Jean-Marc Bourgeon & José De Sousa & Alexis Noir-Luhalwe, 2022. "Social Distancing and Risk Taking: Evidence from a Team Game Show," CESifo Working Paper Series 10063, CESifo.
    13. Qing Liu & Yihui (Elina) Tang, 2015. "Construction of Heterogeneous Conjoint Choice Designs: A New Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 346-366, May.
    14. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    15. Kennon Sheldon & Tan Hoon, 2007. "The multiple determination of well-being: Independent effects of positive traits, needs, goals, selves, social supports, and cultural contexts," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 565-592, December.
    16. Dmitri Vinogradov & Yousef Makhlouf, 2021. "Signaling probabilities in ambiguity: who reacts to vague news?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 371-404, May.
    17. Fabo, B., 2017. "Towards an understanding of job matching using web data," Other publications TiSEM b8b877f2-ae6a-495f-b6cc-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Charness, Gary & haruvy, Ernan & Sonsino, Doron, 2001. "Social Distance and Reciprocity: The Internet vs. the Laboratory," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt46r1282v, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    19. Karolien Lenaerts & Miroslav Beblavý & Brian Fabo, 2016. "Prospects for utilisation of non-vacancy Internet data in labour market analysis—an overview," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, December.
    20. Jonathan Baron, 2001. "Confusion of Group Interest and Self-Interest in Parochial Cooperation on Behalf of a Group," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(3), pages 283-296, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:4:p:782-791. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.