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

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 65, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 782-791

  Whitehead, Lisa Claire ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Ethics; Internet; Literature review; Sampling; Validity

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHY; DATABASE; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE; INTERNET; LITERATURE REVIEW; RESEARCH WORK; SAMPLING;

ARTICLE; CINAHL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; DATA ANALYSIS; EMBASE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; ONLINE SYSTEM; PSYCINFO; QUALITY CONTROL; RELIABILITY; RESEARCH ETHICS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERNET; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 34447498471     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.005     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Andersson G., Bergstrom J., and Hollandare F. Internet-based self-help for depression: Randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 187 (2005) 456-461
2. Baernholdt M., and Clarke S. Internet research in an international context. Applied Nursing Research 19 (2006) 48-50
3. Bakardjieva, M., & Feenberg, A. (2001). Involving the virtual subject: Conceptual, methodological and ethical dimensions. Journal of Ethics and Information Technology, 2(4), 233-240.
4. Bassett, E., & O'Riordan, K. (2002). Ethics of Internet research: Contesting the human subjects research model. Journal of Ethics and Information Technology, 4(30), 233-247.
5. Bruckman A. Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data collected in human subjects research on the Internet. Ethics and Information Technology 4 3 (2002) 217-231. http://www.nvu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethicsbrufull.html Available at 〈http://www.nvu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_bru_full.html〉 accessed 27/10/05
6. Buchanan, T. (2000). Potential of the Internet for personality research. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 121-140). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7. Buchanan, T. (2001). Online personality assessment. In U.-D. Reips, & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet science (pp. 57-74). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
8. Buchanan T. Online assessment: Desirable or dangerous?. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 33 (2002) 148-154
9. Buchanan, T. (2003). Internet-mediated psychological assessment: Problems with use of normative data. In Poster presented at the British Psychological Society, annual conference, 13th March 2003, Bournemouth, UK.
10. Buchanan, T., Ali, T., Heffernan, T. M., Jing, J., Parrott, A., Rodgers, J., et al. (2002). In Psychometric properties of online self-report memory questionnaires: The EMQ and PMQ. Poster presented at the German Online Research '02, Hoenheim, Germany, 10 October 2002 〈http://users.wmin.ac.uk/%7Ebuchant/downloads/gor02poster.ppt〉.
11. Buchanan T., Ali T., Heffernan T., Ling J., Parrott A., Rodgers J., et al. Non-equivalence of online and paper-and-pencil psychological tests: The case of the Prospective Memory Questionnaire. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 37 1 (2005) 148-154
12. Campbell M., Meier A., Carr C., Reedy J., James A., and Zheng B. Health behaviour changes after colon cancer. A comparison of findings from face-to-face and on-line focus groups. Family & Community Health 24 (2001) 88-103
13. Davis R. Web-based administration of a personality questionnaire: Comparison with traditional methods. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 31 (1999) 572-577
14. DeBell, M. (2006). Computer and Internet use by students in 2003 statistical analysis report, September 2006. U.S. Department of Education.
15. Dillman, D., & Bowker, D. (2001). The web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologists. In U. Reips, & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Dimensions of interest science (pp. 159-178). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
16. Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., and Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 10 (2005) 45-53
17. Edwards A., Elwyn G., Hood K., and Rollnick S. Judging the 'weighting of evidence' in systematic reviews: Introducing rigour into the qualitative overview stage by assessing signal and noise. Journal of Evaluation and Clinical Practice 6 (2000) 177-184
18. Etter J. Comparing the efficacy of two Internet-based, computer-tailored smoking cessation programs: A randomized trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 7 (2005) e2
19. Etter J. Internet-based smoking cessation programs. International Journal of Medical Information 75 1 (2006) 110-116
20. Etter J., Le Houezec J., and Perneger T. A self-administered questionnaire to measure dependence on cigarettes: The cigarette dependence scale. Neuropsychopharmacology 28 (2003) 359-370
21. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: The checklist for reporting results of Internet E-surveys (CHERRIES). Journal of Medical Internet Research 6 3 (2004) e34
22. Farvolden P., McBride C., Bagby R.M., and Ravitz P. A web-based screening instrument for depression and anxiety disorders in primary care. Journal of Medical Internet Research 5 3 (2003) e23
23. Fouladi R., McCarthy C., and Moller N. Paper and pencil or online? Evaluating mode effects on measures of emotional functioning and attachment. Assessment 9 (2002) 204-215
24. Fraley R. How to conduct behavioural research over the Internet (2004), Guilford Press, New York
25. Frankel, M., & Siang, S. (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research on the internet. A report of a workshop, June 10-11, 1999, Washington, DC. Available at 〈http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/intres/report.pdf〉.
26. Freeman E., Clare L., and Savitch N. Improving web site accessibility for people with early stage dementia: A preliminary investigation. Aging and Mental Health 9 5 (2005) 442-448
27. George, C. E., Lankford, J. S., & Wilson, S. E. (1992). The effects of computerized versus paper-and-pencil administration on measures of negative affect. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 203-209.
28. Gosling S.D., Vazire S., Srivastava S., and John O.P. Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist 59 2 (2004) 93-104
29. Gustafson D., Hawkins R., and Boberg E. Impact of a patient-centred, computer-based health information/support system. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 16 (1999) 1-9
30. Harewood, G., Yacavone, R. F., Locke, G. R., & Wiersema, M. J. (2001). Prospective comparison of endoscopy patient satisfaction surveys: E-mail versus standard mail versus telephone. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 96(12), 3312.
31. Horswill M., and Coster M. User-controlled photographic animations, photograph-based questions, and questionnaires: Three Internet-based instruments for measuring drivers' risk-taking behaviour. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 33 (2001) 46-58
32. Hsuing, R. C. (2000). The best of both worlds: An online self-help group hosted by a mental health professional. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 3(6), 935-950.
33. Im E., and Chee W. A feminist critique of the use of the Internet in nursing research. Advances in Nursing Science 23 4 (2001) 67-82
34. Internet World Statistics. (2006). Available online at 〈http://www.Internetworldstats.com〉 accessed 12/2/06.
35. Johnson, J. (2000). Predicting observes' ratings of the Big Five from the CPI, HPI and NEO-PI-R: A comparative validity study. European Journal of Personality, 14, 1-19.
36. Johnson, J. (2001). Screening massively large data sets for non-responsiveness in web-based personality inventories. Invited talk to the joint Bielefeld-Groningen Personality Research Group, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
37. Johnson, J. (2002). Effect of construal communality on the congruence between self-report and personality impressions. In P. Borkenau, & F.M. Spinath (Eds.), Personality judgements: Theoretical and applied issues. European conference on personality, Jena, Germany.
38. Johnson J. Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from Web-based personality inventories. Journal of Research in Personality 39 (2005) 103-129
39. Joinson A. Anonymity, disinhibition and social desirability on the Internet. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 31 (1999) 433-438
40. Joinson, A. (2002). Understanding the psychology of internet behaviour. Virtual worlds, real lives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
41. Jones, S. (1999). Studying the Net: Intricacies and issues. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net (pp. 1-27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
42. Kanzaki H., Makimoto K., Takemura T., and Nobuyuki A. Development of Web-based qualitative and quantitative data collection systems: Study on daily symptoms and coping strategies among Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients. Nursing & Health Sciences 6 (2004) 229-236
43. Kelly G., and McKenzie B. Security, privacy, and confidentiality issues on the Internet. Journal of Medical Internet Research 4 2 (2002) e12
44. Kim H., Gerber G., Patel R., Hollowell C., and Bales G. Practice patterns in the treatment of female urinary incontinence: A postal and internet survey. Urology 57 1 (2001) 45-48
45. King S. Researching Internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for reporting of results. The Information Society 12 (1996) 119-127
46. Knight J., Heaven C., and Christie I. Inclusive citizenship (2002), Leonard Cheshire, London
47. Kralik D., Price K., Warren J., and Koch T. Issues in data generation using e-mail group conversations for nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 53 2 (2006) 213-220
48. Krantz J., and Dalal R. Validity of Web-based psychological research. In: Birnbaum M.H. (Ed). Psychological experiments on the Internet (2000), Academic Press, San Diego, CA 35-60
49. Kraut R., Patterson V., Lundmark M., Kiesler T., Mukhopadhyay T., and Scherlis W. Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?. American Psychologist 53 (1998) 1017-1031
50. Kurtz J., and Parrish C. Semantic response consistency and protocol validity in structured personality assessment: The case of the NEO-PI-R. Journal of Personality Assessment 76 (2001) 315-332
51. Leece, P., Bhandari, M., Sprague, S., Swiontkowski, M., Schemitsch, E., & Tornetta, P. (2004). Internet versus mailed questionnaires: A controlled comparison. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(4), e39.
52. Lieberman, M., & Goldstein, B. (2005). Self-help on-line: An outcome evaluation of Breast Cancer Bulletin Boards. Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 855-862.
53. Mann C., and Stewart F. Internet communication and qualitative research (2000), Sage, Thousand Oaks, London
54. Marmot, M., Banks, J., Blundell, R., Lessof, C., & Nazroo, J. (2002). Health, wealth and lifestyles of the older population in England: The 2002 English longitudinal study of ageing. Institute for Fiscal Studies: London.
55. McMahon S.R., Iwamoto M., Massoudi M., Yusuf H., Stevenson J., David F., et al. Comparison of e-mail, fax, and postal surveys of paediatricians. Paediatrics 111 (2003) e229
56. Mitra, A., & Cohen, E., (1999). Analysing the Web: Directions and challenges. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net (pp. 179-202). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
57. Moore G. On-line communities: Helping "senior-surfers" find health information on the Web. Journal of Gerontological Nursing 31 11 (2005) 42-48
58. Office for National Statistics. (2004). Social trends No. 34. London: The Stationery Office.
59. Parsons M., and Greenwood J. A guide to the use of focus groups in health care. Contemporary Nurse 9 2 (2000) 169-180
60. Pasveer K., and Ellard J. The making of a personality inventory: Help from the WWW. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 30 (1998) 309-313
61. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). New York: Academic Press.
62. Pilling D., Barrett P., and Floyd M. Disabled people and the Internet: Experiences, barriers and opportunities (2004), Joseph Rowntree Foundation, London
63. Raziano, D. B., Jayadevappa, R., Valenzula, D., Weiner, M., & Lavizzo-Mourey, R. (2001). E-mail versus conventional postal mail survey of Geriatric Chiefs. The Gerontologist, 41, 799-804.
64. Reips U.-D. The web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages and solutions. In: Birnbaum M.H. (Ed). Psychological experiments on the Internet (2000), Academic Press, San Diego, CA 69-117
65. Reips U.-D. Internet-based psychological experimenting. Five dos and don'ts. Social Science Computer Review 20 3 (2002) 241-249
66. Research Surveys of Great Britain. (2001). ICT access and use: Report on the benchmark survey. Research Report No. 252. London: DfES. Also available at 〈www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR252.doc〉.
67. Ritter P., Lorig K., Laurent D., and Matthews K. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: A randomized comparison. Journal of Medical Internet Research 6 3 (2004) e29
68. Schneier, B. (2000). Secrets and lies: Digital security in a Networked World. New York: Wiley.
69. Schonlau M. Will Web surveys ever become part of mainstream research?. Journal of Medical Internet Research 6 3 (2004) e31
70. Schonlau, M., Van Soest, A., Couper, M., Winter, J., & Kapteyn, A. (2004). Attempting to adjust for selection bias in Web surveys with propensity scores: The case of the Health and Retirement Survey (HRS). In Proceedings of the section on survey statistics, American Statistical Association.
71. Schulenberg, S. E., & Yutrzenka, B. A. (1999). The equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil psychological instruments: Implications for measures of negative affect. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31(2), 315-321.
72. Sharf, B. F. (1999). Beyond Netiquette: The ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research on the Internet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net (pp. 243-256). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
73. Stewart, F., Eckermann, E., & Zhou, K. (1998). Using the Internet in qualitative public health research: A comparison of Chinese and Australian young women's perceptions of tobacco use. Internet Journal of Health Promotion. URL 〈http://www.rhpeo.org/ijhp-articles/1998/12/index.htm〉.
74. Teel C., and Shaw J. Building and critiquing qualitative research web sites: A cyberspace project to connect undergraduate nursing students in Canada and the United States. Nursing Education Perspectives 26 3 (2005) 163-167
75. Turkle S. Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet (1995), Simon & Schuster, New York
76. Turkle S. Constructions and reconstructions of self in virtual reality: Playing in the MUDs. In: Kiesler S. (Ed). Culture of the Internet (1997), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hilldale, NJ 143-155
77. US Department of Commerce. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. Available online at 〈http://www.ntia.doc/ntiahome/dn/〉 accessed 14/2/06.
78. Valaitis R., and Sword W. Online discussions with pregnant and parenting adolescents: Perspectives and possibilities. Health Promotion and Practice 6 4 (2005) 464-471
79. Varedian, M., & Forsman, G. (2003). Comparing propensity score weighting with other weighting methods: A case study. In The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) 58th annual conference.
80. Weisband, S., & Kiesler, S. (1996). Self disclosure on computer forms: Meta-analysis and implications. In Paper presented at the conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 96), Vencouver, BC.
81. Woolhouse, L., & Myers, S. (1999). Factors affecting sample make-up: Results from an Internet-based personality questionnaire. In Paper presented at the 1999 British psychological society social psychology section conference.