Online data collection strategies used in qualitative research of the health field: a scoping review

Salvador, Pétala Tuani Candido de Oliveira; Alves, Kisna Yasmin Andrade; Rodrigues, Cláudia Cristiane Filgueira Martins; Oliveira, Lannuzya Veríssimo e

doi:10.1590/1983-1447.2020.20190297

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Scoping Review • Rev. Gaúcha Enferm. 41 • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-1447.2020.20190297 copy

Online data collection strategies used in qualitative research of the health field: a scoping review

Estrategias de colección de datos online en la investigación cualitativa del área de salud: revisión de escopo

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Objective:

To identify and map the online data collection strategies used in qualitative researches in the health field.

Methods:

This is a scoping review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) from the Joanna Briggs Institute. We analyzed scientific articles, theses and dissertations from 12 databases. The analysis was made by descriptive statistics.

Results:

The final sample consisted of 121 researches. It was found that the number of publications increased sharply in the last five years, with predominance of studies from the United Kingdom. The highlight fields were psychology (28.1%), medicine (25.6%) and nursing (12.4%). The publications used 10 online data collection strategies: Online questionnaires, online forums, Facebook, websites, blogs, e-mail, online focus group, Twitter, chats, and YouTube.

Conclusions:

Online data collection strategies are constantly expanding and increasingly used in the health area.

Keywords:
Qualitative research; Health sciences; Internet; Internet access; Online social networking; Social media

Variable	n	%
Type of study
Scientific article	110	90.9
Thesis	7	5.8
Dissertation	4	3.3
Year of publication
2003 - 2008	8	6.7
2009 - 2013	24	19.8
2014 - 2018	89	73.5
Author's field of knowledge
Psychology	34	28.1
Medicine	31	25.6
Nursing	15	12.4
Public health	9	7.4
Social sciences*	7	5.8
Pharmacy	6	5.0
Nutrition	4	3.3
Occupational therapy	3	2.5
Physical therapy	3	2.5
Computer science*	3	2.5
Odontology	2	1.7
Social work	1	0.8
Pedagogy*	1	0.8
Physical education	1	0.8
Biomedicine	1	0.8

Online data collection strategies (%)	Benefits	Limitations
Online questionnaires (27.3%)	Access to large samples Wide geographical coverage Low cost Data collection neutrality Possibility of anonymity Time to ponder on the matter	High rate of unanswered questions Impossibility of clarifying or debating the answers Superficial responses Selection bias
Online forums (27.3%)	Access to large samples Wide geographical coverage Collection was enriched by the interaction between subjects Data collection neutrality It was possible to collect data on sensitive subjects	It was impossible to collect sociodemographic data Superficial responses There was a chance of communication noise Selection bias
Facebook (14.9%)	Access to large samples Wide geographical coverage Data collection with teenagers Low cost Data collection neutrality Relative anonymity	It was difficult to collect sociodemographic data It was impossible to access certain data due to privacy settings Selection bias
Websites (9.9%)	Access to large samples Low cost Data collection neutrality	It was impossible to collect sociodemographic data Selection bias
Blogs (9.1%)	Access to large samples Anonymity Low cost Data collection neutrality It was possible to collect data on sensitive subjects	It was impossible to collect sociodemographic data Impossibility of clarifying or debating the answers Possibility of losing data Selection bias
E-mail (8.3%)	Access to large samples Wide geographical coverage It was possible to collect data on sensitive subjects Time to ponder on the matter	High rate of unanswered questions Responses took a long time Responses were not spontaneous Superficial responses
Online focus groups (5.8%)	Wide geographical coverage Secure storage of data Low cost The group influence effect was minimized Possibility of anonymity	Non-verbal data was impossible to collect Superficial responses
Twitter (4.1%)	Access to large samples It was possible to map the opinions of the subjects	Ethical aspects Superficiality (character limit)
Chat room (2.5%)	Wide geographical coverage Secure storage of data Data collection with teenagers Low cost It was possible to collect data on sensitive subjects	Slower data collection Superficial responses Selection bias
YouTube (0.8%)	Access to large samples Access to large volumes of data	Selection bias

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Escola de Enfermagem Rua São Manoel, 963 -Campus da Saúde , 90.620-110 - Porto Alegre - RS - Brasil, Fone: (55 51) 3308-5242 / Fax: (55 51) 3308-5436 - Porto Alegre - RS - Brazil
E-mail: revista@enf.ufrgs.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author:
Pétala Tuani Candido de Oliveira Salvador petalatuani@hotmail.com