Cited by 22Survey Methodology and NonresponseDigital Mental Health InterventionsFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods

The use of internet-mediated cross-sectional studies in mental health research

Open access
Pitman, Alexandra, Osborn, David P. J., King, Michael B.·2015·BJPsych Advances

Abstract

Summary This article summarises internet-mediated approaches to conducting quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional mental health research, and describes aspects of research design to consider for optimising scientific rigour and validity as well as response. Rapid adoption of internet-mediated approaches risks compromising the quality of the methods used. Not only can it cause distress to participants, but methodological problems may lead to inappropriate inferences being made from research findings. In this article the advantages of using internet communication for research purposes are balanced against the disadvantages, using examples of recent internet-mediated research (IMR) studies to illustrate good practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1192/apt.bp.114.012948

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The sampling frame (all young adults working or studying at 164 UK higher education institutions in 2010) provided the most efficient, comprehensive and pragmatic means of recruiting a hard-to-reach population of young adults while minimising traditional biases associated with recruiting a help-seeking sample.

    “We considered this sampling frame to provide the most efficient, comprehensive and pragmatic means of recruiting a hard-to-reach population of young adults (Pitman et al., 2015), while simultaneously minimising traditional biases associated with recruiting a help-seeking sample.”

    From The stigma associated with bereavement by suicide and other sudden deaths: A qualitative interview study (2018) · cites this paper as Pitman et al., 2015

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sampling via email systems of large institutions avoided biases associated with recruiting a help-seeking sample.

    “This avoided the biases associated with recruiting a help-seeking sample [27], such as a bereavement support group.”
  • Conducting a national cross-sectional survey of young adults working or studying at UK HEIs avoided the biases associated with recruiting a help-seeking sample.

    “We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of young adults working or studying at UK higher education institutions (HEIs), avoiding the biases associated with recruiting a help-seeking sample.24”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Delgado-Rodriguez M, Llorca J (2004) Bias. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 58: 635-41.
  2. Office for National Statistics (2010) Standard Occupational Classification 2010: Volume 3 The National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (Rebased on the SOC2010) User Manual. Palgrave Macmillan.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pitman, A., Osborn, D. P. J., & King, M. B.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Pitman, Alexandra
Venue
BJPsych Advances
Published
2015-05
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
175-184
ISSN
  • 2056-4678 (ISSN-L)
  • 2056-4686
OpenAlex
W2313641639
Cited by
22
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
9.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BJPsych Advances (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/L501487/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Keywords
online research, online surveys, cross-sectional study, mental health research, research design, validity, response rate, participant distress, methodological quality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review