Although the authors touch briefly on the limitations inherent in recruiting participants through Facebook, they fail to discuss the greatest weakness compared to using a randomized selection process, namely that voluntary participants may differ significantly in the very attitudes being measured. That is, those who agree to participate may be the very ones who hold strong beliefs about the issue.
This is very cool! I am glad to see funders get out ahead in their efforts to understand how society will have been (permanently?) changed due to this unprecedented pandemic of the modern age.
I have been trying to find whether discordant head circumference relative to height and weight is a pediatric risk factor for speech delay, but have not been able to locate any studies.
I wonder what the cost and utilization will be like for 2020-2021, with data collected over the telephone rather than by trained interviewers abstracting the data from insurance/Medicare statements.
This is encouraging, but it is disappointing that so many Cochrane reviews fail to find any effect because of the poor quality of studies. Why are journal editors and reviewers no insisting on higher quality?
The impetus behind this study was the observation that studies of birth defects risks almost universally treat teen mothers as a homogenous age group, whereas clearly a 13-year-old and a 19-year-old may have very different experiences, motivations, and intendedness of pregnancy which could be reflected in their periconceptional behaviors.
The title of this article implies much more than it actually delivers--the methods were only "called into question" for a very small subset of a specific prevention strategy: ". . . allegations that a human papillomavirus vaccine review missed 20 eligible trials in its analysis . . ."
Article