|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
In the United States, recent statistics show that African American and Latinx communities bear a disproportionate burden from COVID-19. Reaching vulnerable and underserved populations is therefore crucial to combating the disease. However, most public messaging campaigns are not targeted toward underserved communities and don't address fears of social stigma, mistrust in the healthcare system, or concerns about immigration status.
The goal of this project is to help the state of Minnesota understand why individuals are not getting tested and potentially identify trusted individuals or organizations that could be used in follow-up work to send messages. To do so, we are deploying flyers through 11 Twin City area food shelves and potentially through public housing units with information on how to answer an online questionnaire.
This provides us with an opportunity to study who answers surveys and why - and what questions are particularly sensitive. This is of general interest to academicians and policymakers alike.
According to Meyer, Mok, and Sullivan (2015) the quality of household surveys is in decline, for three main reasons. First, households have become increasingly less likely to answer surveys at all (unit nonresponse). Second, those that respond are less likely to answer certain questions (item nonresponse). Third, when households do provide answers, they are less likely to be accurate (measurement error). This is important since household surveys help to estimate the employment rate, healthcare needs and of course the census determines resources/representation.
We focus on the first two issues of unit and item nonresponse, which is not random across the population and thus could lead to nonresponse bias. Griffin (2002) found that census tracts with predominantly Hispanic or Black residents had significantly lower response rates to the American Community Survey as compared to the response rates in predominantly white tracts. Similarly, Maitland et al. (2017) found that response rates to the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) were lower in areas with higher levels of Hispanic and minority residents.
We hypothesize that financial incentives may encourage unit response; conversely, a close association with the government may discourage response. To test these hypotheses, we plan to cross-randomize the incentive amount offered and the emphasis placed on government involvement in the study on flyers advertising the baseline survey. Individuals will see either a) a 10 dollar incentive, or b) a 20 dollar incentive; and either a) messaging that emphasizes government involvement in the study, or b) messaging that emphasizes the involvement of academic researchers. Flyers will be randomized at the foodshelf-day level.
To test what affects item non-response on potentially sensitive questions, such as questions which ask for health information, we hypothesize that ethical framing may encourage individuals to answer questions. This takes two forms --- the deontological (or duty based) frame, and the consequential (or cost-benefit) frame. Moreover, knowing others feel the same way (regarding the obligation or benefits of providing health information) may amplify motivation. Finally, there is the possibility that emphasizing the importance of ethnic and racial disadvantage associated with COVID-19 outcomes may be important for improving item non-response on sensitive questions.
Upon completion of the demographic module of the survey but prior to starting several potentially sensitive survey modules, individuals will see a message that either a) emphasizes the public health benefits of answering the survey questions (cost-benefit frame); b) emphasizes an individual's responsibility to their community (duty frame); c) emphasizes the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on certain ethnic and racial groups; or d) provides no messaging. Messaging content will be randomized at the individual level.
|
After
In the United States, recent statistics show that African American and Latinx communities bear a disproportionate burden from COVID-19. Reaching vulnerable and underserved populations is therefore crucial to combating the disease. However, most public messaging campaigns are not targeted toward underserved communities and don't address fears of social stigma, mistrust in the healthcare system, or concerns about immigration status.
The goal of this project is to help the state of Minnesota understand why individuals are not getting tested and potentially identify trusted individuals or organizations that could be used in follow-up work to send messages. To do so, we are deploying flyers through 10 Twin City area food shelves and potentially through public housing units with information on how to answer an online questionnaire.
This provides us with an opportunity to study who answers surveys and why - and what questions are particularly sensitive. This is of general interest to academicians and policymakers alike.
According to Meyer, Mok, and Sullivan (2015) the quality of household surveys is in decline, for three main reasons. First, households have become increasingly less likely to answer surveys at all (unit nonresponse). Second, those that respond are less likely to answer certain questions (item nonresponse). Third, when households do provide answers, they are less likely to be accurate (measurement error). This is important since household surveys help to estimate the employment rate, healthcare needs and of course the census determines resources/representation.
We focus on the first two issues of unit and item nonresponse, which is not random across the population and thus could lead to nonresponse bias. Griffin (2002) found that census tracts with predominantly Hispanic or Black residents had significantly lower response rates to the American Community Survey as compared to the response rates in predominantly white tracts. Similarly, Maitland et al. (2017) found that response rates to the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) were lower in areas with higher levels of Hispanic and minority residents.
We hypothesize that financial incentives may encourage unit response; conversely, a close association with the government may discourage response. To test these hypotheses, we plan to cross-randomize the incentive amount offered and the emphasis placed on government involvement in the study on flyers advertising the baseline survey. Individuals will see either a) a 10 dollar incentive, or b) a 20 dollar incentive; and either a) messaging that emphasizes government involvement in the study, or b) messaging that emphasizes the involvement of academic researchers. Flyers will be randomized at the foodshelf-day level.
To test what affects item non-response on potentially sensitive questions, such as questions which ask for health information, we hypothesize that ethical framing may encourage individuals to answer questions. This takes two forms --- the deontological (or duty based) frame, and the consequential (or cost-benefit) frame. Moreover, knowing others feel the same way (regarding the obligation or benefits of providing health information) may amplify motivation. Finally, there is the possibility that emphasizing the importance of ethnic and racial disadvantage associated with COVID-19 outcomes may be important for improving item non-response on sensitive questions.
Upon completion of the demographic module of the survey but prior to starting several potentially sensitive survey modules, individuals will see a message that either a) emphasizes the public health benefits of answering the survey questions (cost-benefit frame); b) emphasizes an individual's responsibility to their community (duty frame); c) emphasizes the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on certain ethnic and racial groups; or d) provides no messaging. Messaging content will be randomized at the individual level.
|