Recruiting participants for research from online communities

CIN - Computers Informatics Nursing

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 317-323

  Mendelson, Cindy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

Computers; Nursing research; Research subject recruitment; Research techniques

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; INTERNET; NURSING RESEARCH; PATIENT SELECTION;

INTERNET; NURSING RESEARCH; PATIENT SELECTION;

EID: 36249027124     PISSN: 15382931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.NCN.0000299653.13777.51     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Nua Internet Surveys. How many online? http://www.nua.ie/ surveys/howmanyonline/index.html. Accessed March 6, 2006.
2. Pew Research Center. Internet: The mainstreaming on online life. In Trends (chap. 4). http://pewresearch.org/assets/files/trends2005- internet.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2006.
3. Barry DT. Assessing culture via the Internet: methods and techniques for psychological research. CyberPsychology and Behavior. 2001;4(1):17-21.
4. Fernandez MI, Varga LM, Perrino T, et al. The Internet as recruitment tool for HIV studies: viable strategy for reaching atrisk Hispanic MSM in Miami? AIDS Care. 2004;16(8):953-963.
5. Fleitas J. Spinning tales from the World Wide Web: qualitative research in an electronic environment. Qual Health Res. 1998; 8(2):283-292.
6. Hardey M. The story of my illness: personal accounts of illness on the internet. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health. Illness and Medicine. 2002;6(1):31-46.
7. Im E-O, Chee W. Methodological issues in the recruitment of ethnic minority subjects to research via the Internet: a discussion paper. Int J Nurs Stud. 2005;42:923-929.
8. Pequegnat W, Rosser BRS, Bowen AM, et al. Conducting Internet-based HIV/STD prevention survey research: considerations in design and evaluation. AIDS and Behavior. 2007;11(4):505-521. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&cdb= PubMed&dopt=Abstract&otool= stanford&list_uids=17053853. Accessed November 20, 2006.
9. Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, et al. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a controlled comparison. J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6(4):e39.
10. Davis M, Bolding G, Hart G, Sherr L, Elford J. Reflecting on the experience of interviewing online: perspectives from the Internet and HIV study in London. AIDS Care. 2004;16(8):944-952.
11. Kuper BC, Failla S. Systemic lupus erythematosus: a multisystem autoimmune disorder. Nurs Clin North Am. 2000;35(1):253-265.
12. Mendelson C. Gentle hugs: Internet listservs as sources of support for women with lupus. Adv Nurs Sci. 2003;26(4):299-306.
13. Mendelson C. Living a medically and socially complex life: women living with lupus. Qual Health Res. 2006;16(7):982-997.
14. Eysenback G, Till JE. Ethical issues in qualitative research on Internet communities. BMJ. 2001;323(7321):1103-1105.
15. Pittenger DJ. Internet research: an opportunity to revisit classic ethical problems in behavioral research. Ethics Behav. 2003;13(1): 45-60.
16. Sixsmith J, Murray CD. Ethical issues in the documentary data analysis of Internet posts and archives. Qual Health Res. 2001; 11(3):423-432.
17. Walther JB. Research ethics in Internet-enabled research: human subjects issues and methodological myopia. Ethics Inf Technol. 2002;4:205-216.
18. Miller KL, McKeever P, Coyte PC. Recruitment issues in healthcare research: the situation in home care. Health Soc Care Community. 2003;11(2):111-123.
19. Sutton LB, Erlen JA, Glad JM, Siminoff A. Recruiting vulnerable populations for research: revisiting the ethical issues. Journal of Professional Nursing. 2003;19(2):106-112.
20. Hudson JM, Bruckman AA. "Go away": participants' objections to being studied and the ethic of chat room research. Information Soc. 2004;20:1227-1139.
21. Nonnecke B, Preece J. Lurker demographics: counting the silent. Proceedings of CHI 2000. The Hague, The Netherlands: ACM; 2000.
22. Nonnecke B, Preece J. Why lurkers lurk. Americas Conference on Information Systems, 2001.
23. th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Maui, Hawaii; 2004.
24. Weinberg N, Schmale J, Uken J, Wessel K. Online help: cancer patients participate in a computer-mediated support group. Health Soc Work. 1996;21(1):24-29.
25. Katz J. Luring the lurkers. Available at: http://features.slashdot. org/article.pl?sid=98/12/28/1745252. Accessed March 6, 2006.
26. Joinson AN, Dietz-Uhler B. Explanations for the perpetration of and reactions to deception in a virtual community. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2002;20(3):275-289.
27. Bargh JA, McKenna KYA, Fitzsimons GM. Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the "true self" on the internet. J Soc Issues. 2002;58(1):33-48.
28. Utz S. Types of deception and underlying motivation. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2005;23(1):49-56.
29. Feldman MC. Munchausen by Internet: detecting factitious illness and crisis on the Internet. South Med J. 2000;93(7):669-672.
30. Dombrowski SC, LeMasney JW, Dickson A. Protecting children from online sexual predators: technological, psycho educational, and legal considerations. Professional Psychol Res Pract. 2004;35(1):65-73.
31. Mann C, Stewart F. Internet Communication and Qualitative Research. London, England: Sage Publications; 2000.