CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 790Survey Methodology and NonresponseFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Using the Internet for Surveys and Health Research

Open access
Eysenbach, Gunther, Wyatt, Jeremy·2002·Journal of Medical Internet Research
DOI 10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13PMC PMC1761932
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper concerns the use of the Internet in the research process, from identifying research issues through qualitative research, through using the Web for surveys and clinical trials, to pre-publishing and publishing research results. Material published on the Internet may be a valuable resource for researchers desiring to understand people and the social and cultural contexts within which they live outside of experimental settings, with due emphasis on the interpretations, experiences, and views of 'real world' people. Reviews of information posted by consumers on the Internet may help to identify health beliefs, common topics, motives, information, and emotional needs of patients, and point to areas where research is needed. The Internet can further be used for survey research. Internet-based surveys may be conducted by means of interactive interviews or by questionnaires designed for self-completion. Electronic one-to-one interviews can be conducted via e-mail or using chat rooms. Questionnaires can be administered by e-mail (e.g. using mailing lists), by posting to newsgroups, and on the Web using fill-in forms. In "open" web-based surveys, selection bias occurs due to the non-representative nature of the Internet population, and (more importantly) through self-selection of participants, i.e. the non-representative nature of respondents, also called the 'volunteer effect'. A synopsis of important techniques and tips for implementing Web-based surveys is given. Ethical issues involved in any type of online research are discussed. Internet addresses for finding methods and protocols are provided. The Web is also being used to assist in the identification and conduction of clinical trials. For example, the web can be used by researchers doing a systematic review who are looking for unpublished trials. Finally, the web is used for two distinct types of electronic publication. Type 1 publication is unrefereed publication of protocols or work in progress (a 'post-publication' peer review process may take place), whereas Type 2 publication is peer-reviewed and will ordinarily take place in online journals.

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 · 10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13

Cites

51 of 51 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 quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted in accordance with CHERRIES, STROBE, and CROSS reporting guidelines.

    “A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted in accordance with (a) the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) [52] (b) the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) [53] and (c) the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) [54] guidelines.”

    From Knowledge and use, Perceptions of Benefits and Limitations of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots among Italian Physiotherapy students: a cross-sectional National Study (2025) · cites this paper as [52]

    Citation [52] is attached specifically to CHERRIES, not to STROBE or CROSS. The paper’s “Technical issues” section discusses practical Web-survey methods, but the passages retrieved for “CHERRIES” and “reporting guidelines” do not identify or describe the CHERRIES checklist. Our copy therefore cannot verify this citation’s use for CHERRIES. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The research was developed and conducted following the international reporting guidelines STROBE, CHERRIES and CROSS, ensuring methodological rigor.

    “The research was developed and conducted following the international reporting guidelines (STROBE, CHERRIES and CROSS) [52–54], ensuring methodological rigor.”

    From Knowledge and use, Perceptions of Benefits and Limitations of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots among Italian Physiotherapy students: a cross-sectional National Study (2025) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Methodological issues section discusses Web-survey validity, bias, and when online surveys may be appropriate, but does not address STROBE, CHERRIES, or CROSS. Searches for those reporting guidelines and for reporting standards found no passage in our copy linking them to the citing study or establishing that it followed them. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 3

  1. [7]Pealer LN Weiler RM Web-based health survey research: a primer American Journal of Health Behavior 2000 24 69 72
  2. [9]Lazar J Preece J Designing and implementing Web-based surveys Journal of Computer Information Systems 1999 39 63 7
  3. [16]Suchard MA Adamson S Kennedy S Netpoints: piloting patient attitudinal surveys on the web British Medical Journal 1997 315 529

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Eysenbach, G., & Wyatt, J.
ORCID
Wyatt, Jeremy
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2002-11-22
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
e13
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13
PMC
PMC1761932
OpenAlex
W2146380789
Cited by
790
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 47
FWCI
7.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Oxford
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
internet-based survey, online research ethics, online patient information, health beliefs, selection bias, electronic journals, electronic publications, post-publication peer review, online surveys, chat rooms
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Confidentiality, Data Collection, Health, Humans, Research, Research Design, Selection Bias, Patient Selection, Internet, Research Subjects

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