Comparing Self-Reported Demographic and Sexual Behavioral Factors Among Men Who Have Sex with Men Recruited Through Mechanical Turk, Qualtrics, and a HIV/STI Clinic-Based Sample: Implications for Researchers and Providers

Abstract

Recruitment for HIV research among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) has increasingly moved to the online sphere. However, there are limited data comparing the characteristics of clinic-based respondents versus those recruited via online survey platforms. MSM were recruited from three sampling sites (STI clinic, MTurk, and Qualtrics) to participate in a survey from March 2015 to April 2016. Respondents were compared between each of the sampling sites on demographics, sexual history, substance use, and attention filter passage. Attention filter passage was high for the online sampling sites (MTurk = 93%; Qualtrics = 86%), but significantly lower for the clinic-based sampling site (72%). Clinic-based respondents were significantly more racially/ethnically diverse, reported lower income, and reported more unemployment than online respondents. Clinic-based respondents reported significantly more male sexual partners in the previous 3 months (M clinic-based = 6; MTurk = 3.6; Qualtrics = 4.5), a higher proportion of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and/or syphilis in the last year, and a greater proportion of methamphetamine use (clinic-based = 21%; MTurk = 5%), and inhaled nitrates use (clinic-based = 41%; MTurk = 11%). The clinic-based sample demonstrated more demographic diversity and a greater proportion of HIV risk behaviors when compared to the online samples, but also a relatively low attention filter passage rate. We recommend the use of attention filters across all modalities to assess response validity and urge caution with online survey engines as samples may differ demographically and behaviorally when compared to clinic-based respondents.

PrEP Interest Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in the Netherlands: Covariates and Differences Across Samples

“…They found that 4.1% of the respondents had used PrEP, and that 59.8% was familiar with PrEP. This level of PrEP use is comparable to the online nonprobability samples in the study of Beymer et al (2018), who conducted the study in roughly the same period (2015-2016).…”

“…For instance, in a cohort study in The Netherlands in 2012, 13.5% of MSM had a high intention to use PrEP and 60% had a medium intention to use PrEP (Bil et al, 2015), while an online study in the same period found a much lower intention to use PrEP (47.8%; Frankis, Young, Flowers, & McDaid, 2016). Differences in PrEP use and PrEP interest were also found in a study that directly compared different recruitment strategies: PrEP use and PrEP interest were higher among clients of an HIV/STI testing location compared to an online MTurk sample (Beymer, Holloway, & Grov, 2018).…”

“…Previous studies showed mixed results for the influence of sampling strategies on findings regarding interest in PrEP. Beymer et al (2018), for example, reported higher interest in PrEP among visitors to an STI clinic compared to online participants, while Ferrer et al (2016) reported lower interest among visitors to an STI clinic compared to online participants. Overall, the pattern of results across studies is diverse, confirming our notion that recruitment strategies and sample characteristics can play a major role in explaining different findings.…”

“…It is important to examine factors related to interest in PrEP to be able to identify who can be targeted to increase PrEP uptake, because PrEP uptake has generally remained low, even among individuals with an elevated risk of an HIV infection (Parsons et al, 2017). Moreover, taking recruitment strategies into account is important since previous studies making use of different recruitment strategies have shown substantial variation in PrEP interest (Beymer et al, 2018;Bil et al, 2015;Frankis et al, 2016;Holt et al, 2012;Yang et al, 2013). For the current study, we recruited participants in two ways: via an LGBT research panel (AmsterdamPinkPanel) and via convenience sampling.…”

Prevalence and Correlates of Caffeine Use Disorder Symptoms Among a United States Sample

“…Data were collected anonymously using Qualtrics Research Services, an online survey panel aggregator, which has been utilized in other peer-reviewed research studies. [28][29][30][31] Participants were recruited from 21 actively managed online research panels with more than 13.4 million registered panelists. Recruitment quotas were based on U.S. census data to reflect the age, sex, race, and ethnicity of the general U.S. population.…”