Audio, video, chat, email, or survey: How much does online interview mode matter?

In the design of qualitative interview studies, researchers are faced with the challenge of choosing between many different methods of interviewing participants. This decision is particularly important when sensitive topics are involved. Even prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, considerations of cost, logistics, and participant anonymity have increasingly pushed more interviews online. While previous work has anecdotally compared the advantages of different online interview methods, no empirical evaluation has been undertaken. To fill this gap, we conducted 154 interviews with sensitive questions across seven randomly assigned conditions, exploring differences arising from the mode (video, audio, email, instant chat, survey), anonymity level, and scheduling requirements. We surveyed interviewers and interviewees after their interview for perceptions on rapport, anonymity, and honesty. In addition, we completed a mock qualitative analysis, using the resulting codes as a measure of data equivalence. We note several qualitative differences across mode related to rapport, disclosure, and anonymity. However, we found little evidence to suggest that interview data was impacted by mode for outcomes related to interview experience or data equivalence. The most substantial differences were related logistics where we found substantially lower eligibility and completion rates, and higher time and monetary costs for audio and video modes.

Adjuvant Human Papillomavirus Vaccine to Reduce Recurrent Cervical Dysplasia in Unvaccinated Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of adjuvant human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in preventing recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or greater after surgical excision. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for studies comparing surgical excision alone to surgical excision with adjuvant HPV vaccination for CIN 2 or greater. Studies published from January 1990 to January 2019 were included. METHODS: A total of 5,901 studies were reviewed. The primary outcomes evaluated included: recurrence of CIN 2 or greater, CIN 1 or greater, and HPV 16,18 associated CIN within 6-48 months. We used Covidence software to assist with screening, and meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Six studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. In total 2,984 women were included; 1,360 (45.6%) received adjuvant HPV vaccination after surgical excision, and 1,624 (54.4%) received either placebo or surgical management alone for CIN 2 or greater. Recurrence of CIN 2 or greater occurred within 6-48 months in 115 women (3.9%) overall; however, recurrence was significantly lower for vaccinated women: 26 of 1,360 women (1.9%) vs 89 of 1,624 unvaccinated women (5.9%) (relative risk [RR] 0.36 95% CI 0.23-0.55). The risk of CIN 1 or greater was also significantly lower with adjuvant HPV vaccination, occurring in 86 of 1,360 vaccinated women (6.3%) vs 157 of 1,624 unvaccinated women (9.7%) (RR 0.67 95% CI 0.52-0.85). Thirty-five women developed recurrent CIN 2 or greater lesions specific to HPV 16,18; nine received adjuvant vaccination (0.9%) vs 26 who were unvaccinated (2.0%) (RR 0.41 95% CI 0.20-0.85). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant HPV vaccination in the setting of surgical excision for CIN 2 or greater is associated with a reduced risk of recurrent cervical dysplasia overall and a reduction in the risk of recurrent lesions caused by the most oncogenic strains (HPV 16,18). Human papillomavirus vaccination should therefore be considered for adjuvant treatment in patients undergoing surgical excision for CIN 2 or greater. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019123786.