4.6 Article

Systematic Review of the Use of Online Questionnaires of Older Adults

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 62, 期 4, 页码 696-705

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.12747

关键词

geriatric; questionnaire; survey; online; Internet

资金

  1. American Federation for Aging Research
  2. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [KL2TR000160]
  3. American Cancer Society [121267-PEP-11-263-01-PCSM]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To describe methodological approaches to population targeting and sampling and to summarize limitations of Internet-based questionnaires in older adults. Design Systematic literature review. Setting Studies using online questionnaires in older adult populations. Participants English-language articles using search terms for geriatric, age 65 and over, Internet survey, online survey, Internet questionnaire, and online questionnaire in PubMed and EBSCO host between 1984 and July 2012. Inclusion criteria were study population mean age 65 and older and use of an online questionnaire for research. Review of 336 abstracts yielded 14 articles for full review by two investigators; 11 articles met inclusion criteria. Measurements Articles were extracted for study design and setting, participant characteristics, recruitment strategy, country, and study limitations. Results Eleven articles were published after 2001. Studies had populations with a mean age of 65 to 78, included descriptive and analytical designs, and were conducted in the United States, Australia, and Japan. Recruiting methods varied widely from paper fliers and personal e-mails to use of consumer marketing panels. Investigator-reported study limitations included the use of small convenience samples and limited generalizability. Conclusion Online questionnaires are a feasible method of surveying older adults in some geographic regions and for some subsets of older adults, but limited Internet access constrains recruiting methods and often limits study generalizability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据