Conducting Internet-Based HIV/STD Prevention Survey Research: Considerations in Design and Evaluation

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to advance rigorous Internet-based HIV/STD Prevention quantitative research by providing guidance to fellow researchers, faculty supervising graduates, human subjects' committees, and review groups about some of the most common and challenging questions about Internet-based HIV prevention quantitative research. The authors represent several research groups who have gained experience conducting some of the first Internet-based HIV/STD prevention quantitative surveys in the US and elsewhere. Sixteen questions specific to Internet-based HIV prevention survey research are identified. To aid rigorous development and review of applications, these questions are organized around six common criteria used in federal review groups in the US: significance, innovation, approach (broken down further by research design, formative development, procedures, sampling considerations, and data collection); investigator, environment and human subjects' issues. Strategies promoting minority participant recruitment, minimizing attrition, validating participants, and compensating participants are discussed. Throughout, the implications on budget and realistic timetabling are identified.

Identifying Multiple Submissions in Internet Research: Preserving Data Integrity

“…Internet research; Multiple submissions; Repeat responders; Validity; Rural; MSM Internet-based research with high HIV risk and hidden populations, such as men who have sex with men (MSM), is rapidly expanding (Pequegnat et al 2006). The increase in Internet research has led a number of authors to call for examination of methodological issues related to internal and external validity (Kraut et al 2004;Pequegnat et al 2006).…”

“…The increase in Internet research has led a number of authors to call for examination of methodological issues related to internal and external validity (Kraut et al 2004;Pequegnat et al 2006). The anonymity of the Internet provides advantages and disadvantages in terms of internal validity (Kraut et al 2004).…”

“…However, anonymity in online studies may lower self-regulation, increasing the possibility of developing multiple identities (Joinson 1998). If significant numbers of participants in online studies change their identity and enroll multiple times, the integrity of data will be severely compromised (Birnbaum 2004;Mustanski 2001;Pequegnat et al 2006; Reips 2002a, b).…”

“…However, anonymity in online studies may lower self-regulation, increasing the possibility of developing multiple identities (Joinson 1998). If significant numbers of participants in online studies change their identity and enroll multiple times, the integrity of data will be severely compromised (Birnbaum 2004;Mustanski 2001;Pequegnat et al 2006; Reips 2002a, b).Early in the Internet research revolution, it was suggested that the prevalence of repeat responders (the number of people who enroll multiple times) and the frequency of multiple submissions (the number of times a single individual enrolls) were "rare" and "easy to detect" (Birnbaum 2000(Birnbaum , 2004Musch and Reips 2000; Reips 2002a, b). In these early studies, incentives were seldom used to encourage enrollment or increase retention (Birnbaum 2004).…”

“…The "paid" group consisted of men who lived in a rural area (i.e., a town of less than 75,000 and <60 min from an urban center; Bowen et al 2004) and were identified as unique participants. The remaining eligible men (i.e., urban and/or duplicate) were routed to the "unpaid" group".Participants were sent an activation e-mail providing a link to the study (Pequegnat et al 2006) that also informed them as to their payment eligibility. Participants then joined the project by accessing their account using their username and password.…”