Loading…
Quality, rigour and usefulness of free-text comments collected by a large population based longitudinal study - ALSWH
While it is common practice for health surveys to include an open-ended question asking for additional comments, the responses to these questions are often not analysed or used by researchers as data. The current project employed an automated semantic program to assess the useability and thematic co...
Saved in:
Published in: | PloS one 2013-07, Vol.8 (7), p.e68832-e68832 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-89660a87177e6408bdb8db3b67038754470606e87cf0f03d9a2fd145461e4b563 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-89660a87177e6408bdb8db3b67038754470606e87cf0f03d9a2fd145461e4b563 |
container_end_page | e68832 |
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | e68832 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 8 |
creator | Rich, Jane Louise Chojenta, Catherine Loxton, Deborah |
description | While it is common practice for health surveys to include an open-ended question asking for additional comments, the responses to these questions are often not analysed or used by researchers as data. The current project employed an automated semantic program to assess the useability and thematic content of the responses to an open-ended free response item included in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) surveys. The study examined the comments of three cohorts of women, born between 1973-78, 1946-51, and 1921-26, from Survey 1 (in 1996) and Survey 5 (in 2007-2009). Findings revealed important differences in the health status of responders compared to non-responders. Across all three cohorts, and at both time points, women who commented tended to have poorer physical health (except for women aged 82-87) and social functioning, experienced more life events, were less likely to be partnered, and (except for women aged 18-23 years) more likely to have higher levels of education, than women who did not comment. Results for mental health were mixed. The analysis revealed differences between cohorts as well as changes over time. The most common themes to emerge for the 1973-78 cohort were health, time, pregnant and work, for the 1946-51 cohort, the most common themes were health, life, time and work, while for the 1921-26 cohort, the most common themes were husband, health and family. The concepts and frequency of concepts changed from the first to the fifth survey. For women in the 1973-78 cohort, pregnant emerged as a prevalent theme, while eating disappeared. Among women in the 1946-51 cohort, cancer, operation and medication emerged as prevalent themes, while for women in the 1921-26 cohort, the concept children disappeared, while family emerged. This analysis suggests that free-text comments are a valuable data source, suitable for content, thematic and narrative analysis, particularly when collected over time. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0068832 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1399533038</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A478325880</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_b396051bbfb54b60baa6b35afe95665b</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A478325880</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-89660a87177e6408bdb8db3b67038754470606e87cf0f03d9a2fd145461e4b563</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QDgijYMWmaNL0RhkXdgYFF14_LkLRJJ0ummU0acf69qdNdprIX0osekue85yPnZNlzBBcIV-j9tYu-F3axc71aQEgZw8WD7BTVuMhpAfHDI_skexLCNYQEM0ofZycFZlVZsfI0i1-isGbYvwPedEkRiL4FMSgdba9CAE4D7ZXKB_V7AI3bblU_hGRYq5pBtUDugQBW-E6BndtFKwbjeiBFSHfW9Z0ZYmtSmiAkYw9ysFxf_bx4mj3Swgb1bPqfZd8_ffx2fpGvLz-vzpfrvKF1MeSsphQKVqGqUrSETLaStRJLWsFUACnLClJIFasaDTXEbS0K3aKSlBSpUhKKz7KXB92ddYFPHQsc4bomGCeRRKwOROvENd95sxV-z50w_O-B8x0XfjCNVVzimkKCpNSSlJJCKQSVmAitakIpkUnrwxQtyq1qm9QqL-xMdH7Tmw3v3C-OK8hYDZPAm0nAu5uowsC3JjTKWtErF1PeJUIUY0LHvF_9g95f3UR1IhVgeu1S3GYU5cv0_rggjI1hF_dQ6WvV1jRpvLRJ5zOHtzOHxIzz0YkYAl9dff1_9vLHnH19xG6UsMMmOBvHmQpzsDyAjXcheKXvmowgH7fjtht83A4-bUdye3H8QHdOt-uA_wAt0wnR</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1399533038</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quality, rigour and usefulness of free-text comments collected by a large population based longitudinal study - ALSWH</title><source>PubMed Central Free</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Rich, Jane Louise ; Chojenta, Catherine ; Loxton, Deborah</creator><contributor>Miles, Jeremy</contributor><creatorcontrib>Rich, Jane Louise ; Chojenta, Catherine ; Loxton, Deborah ; Miles, Jeremy</creatorcontrib><description>While it is common practice for health surveys to include an open-ended question asking for additional comments, the responses to these questions are often not analysed or used by researchers as data. The current project employed an automated semantic program to assess the useability and thematic content of the responses to an open-ended free response item included in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) surveys. The study examined the comments of three cohorts of women, born between 1973-78, 1946-51, and 1921-26, from Survey 1 (in 1996) and Survey 5 (in 2007-2009). Findings revealed important differences in the health status of responders compared to non-responders. Across all three cohorts, and at both time points, women who commented tended to have poorer physical health (except for women aged 82-87) and social functioning, experienced more life events, were less likely to be partnered, and (except for women aged 18-23 years) more likely to have higher levels of education, than women who did not comment. Results for mental health were mixed. The analysis revealed differences between cohorts as well as changes over time. The most common themes to emerge for the 1973-78 cohort were health, time, pregnant and work, for the 1946-51 cohort, the most common themes were health, life, time and work, while for the 1921-26 cohort, the most common themes were husband, health and family. The concepts and frequency of concepts changed from the first to the fifth survey. For women in the 1973-78 cohort, pregnant emerged as a prevalent theme, while eating disappeared. Among women in the 1946-51 cohort, cancer, operation and medication emerged as prevalent themes, while for women in the 1921-26 cohort, the concept children disappeared, while family emerged. This analysis suggests that free-text comments are a valuable data source, suitable for content, thematic and narrative analysis, particularly when collected over time.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068832</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23874784</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Aging ; Analysis ; Australia ; Biology ; Cancer ; Children ; Computer Science ; Correlation analysis ; Datasets ; Drugs ; Ethics ; Families & family life ; Female ; Gender ; Health Status ; Health Surveys ; Higher education ; Homeless people ; Humans ; Longitudinal Studies ; Medicine ; Mental health ; Polls & surveys ; Population ; Population studies ; Population-based studies ; Pregnancy ; Qualitative research ; Quality of life ; Researchers ; Responses ; Science Policy ; Semantics ; Studies ; Surveys ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Time ; Women ; Women's Health ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2013-07, Vol.8 (7), p.e68832-e68832</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2013 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2013 Rich et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2013 Rich et al 2013 Rich et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-89660a87177e6408bdb8db3b67038754470606e87cf0f03d9a2fd145461e4b563</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-89660a87177e6408bdb8db3b67038754470606e87cf0f03d9a2fd145461e4b563</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1399533038/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1399533038?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27344,27924,27925,33774,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23874784$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Miles, Jeremy</contributor><creatorcontrib>Rich, Jane Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chojenta, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loxton, Deborah</creatorcontrib><title>Quality, rigour and usefulness of free-text comments collected by a large population based longitudinal study - ALSWH</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>While it is common practice for health surveys to include an open-ended question asking for additional comments, the responses to these questions are often not analysed or used by researchers as data. The current project employed an automated semantic program to assess the useability and thematic content of the responses to an open-ended free response item included in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) surveys. The study examined the comments of three cohorts of women, born between 1973-78, 1946-51, and 1921-26, from Survey 1 (in 1996) and Survey 5 (in 2007-2009). Findings revealed important differences in the health status of responders compared to non-responders. Across all three cohorts, and at both time points, women who commented tended to have poorer physical health (except for women aged 82-87) and social functioning, experienced more life events, were less likely to be partnered, and (except for women aged 18-23 years) more likely to have higher levels of education, than women who did not comment. Results for mental health were mixed. The analysis revealed differences between cohorts as well as changes over time. The most common themes to emerge for the 1973-78 cohort were health, time, pregnant and work, for the 1946-51 cohort, the most common themes were health, life, time and work, while for the 1921-26 cohort, the most common themes were husband, health and family. The concepts and frequency of concepts changed from the first to the fifth survey. For women in the 1973-78 cohort, pregnant emerged as a prevalent theme, while eating disappeared. Among women in the 1946-51 cohort, cancer, operation and medication emerged as prevalent themes, while for women in the 1921-26 cohort, the concept children disappeared, while family emerged. This analysis suggests that free-text comments are a valuable data source, suitable for content, thematic and narrative analysis, particularly when collected over time.</description><subject>Aging</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>Computer Science</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Drugs</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Families & family life</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Health Status</subject><subject>Health Surveys</subject><subject>Higher education</subject><subject>Homeless people</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Longitudinal Studies</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Mental health</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Population studies</subject><subject>Population-based studies</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Responses</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Time</subject><subject>Women</subject><subject>Women's Health</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QDgijYMWmaNL0RhkXdgYFF14_LkLRJJ0ummU0acf69qdNdprIX0osekue85yPnZNlzBBcIV-j9tYu-F3axc71aQEgZw8WD7BTVuMhpAfHDI_skexLCNYQEM0ofZycFZlVZsfI0i1-isGbYvwPedEkRiL4FMSgdba9CAE4D7ZXKB_V7AI3bblU_hGRYq5pBtUDugQBW-E6BndtFKwbjeiBFSHfW9Z0ZYmtSmiAkYw9ysFxf_bx4mj3Swgb1bPqfZd8_ffx2fpGvLz-vzpfrvKF1MeSsphQKVqGqUrSETLaStRJLWsFUACnLClJIFasaDTXEbS0K3aKSlBSpUhKKz7KXB92ddYFPHQsc4bomGCeRRKwOROvENd95sxV-z50w_O-B8x0XfjCNVVzimkKCpNSSlJJCKQSVmAitakIpkUnrwxQtyq1qm9QqL-xMdH7Tmw3v3C-OK8hYDZPAm0nAu5uowsC3JjTKWtErF1PeJUIUY0LHvF_9g95f3UR1IhVgeu1S3GYU5cv0_rggjI1hF_dQ6WvV1jRpvLRJ5zOHtzOHxIzz0YkYAl9dff1_9vLHnH19xG6UsMMmOBvHmQpzsDyAjXcheKXvmowgH7fjtht83A4-bUdye3H8QHdOt-uA_wAt0wnR</recordid><startdate>20130711</startdate><enddate>20130711</enddate><creator>Rich, Jane Louise</creator><creator>Chojenta, Catherine</creator><creator>Loxton, Deborah</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130711</creationdate><title>Quality, rigour and usefulness of free-text comments collected by a large population based longitudinal study - ALSWH</title><author>Rich, Jane Louise ; Chojenta, Catherine ; Loxton, Deborah</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-89660a87177e6408bdb8db3b67038754470606e87cf0f03d9a2fd145461e4b563</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Aging</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>Computer Science</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Drugs</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Families & family life</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Health Status</topic><topic>Health Surveys</topic><topic>Higher education</topic><topic>Homeless people</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Longitudinal Studies</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Mental health</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Population studies</topic><topic>Population-based studies</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Responses</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Time</topic><topic>Women</topic><topic>Women's Health</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rich, Jane Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chojenta, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loxton, Deborah</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rich, Jane Louise</au><au>Chojenta, Catherine</au><au>Loxton, Deborah</au><au>Miles, Jeremy</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quality, rigour and usefulness of free-text comments collected by a large population based longitudinal study - ALSWH</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2013-07-11</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e68832</spage><epage>e68832</epage><pages>e68832-e68832</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>While it is common practice for health surveys to include an open-ended question asking for additional comments, the responses to these questions are often not analysed or used by researchers as data. The current project employed an automated semantic program to assess the useability and thematic content of the responses to an open-ended free response item included in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) surveys. The study examined the comments of three cohorts of women, born between 1973-78, 1946-51, and 1921-26, from Survey 1 (in 1996) and Survey 5 (in 2007-2009). Findings revealed important differences in the health status of responders compared to non-responders. Across all three cohorts, and at both time points, women who commented tended to have poorer physical health (except for women aged 82-87) and social functioning, experienced more life events, were less likely to be partnered, and (except for women aged 18-23 years) more likely to have higher levels of education, than women who did not comment. Results for mental health were mixed. The analysis revealed differences between cohorts as well as changes over time. The most common themes to emerge for the 1973-78 cohort were health, time, pregnant and work, for the 1946-51 cohort, the most common themes were health, life, time and work, while for the 1921-26 cohort, the most common themes were husband, health and family. The concepts and frequency of concepts changed from the first to the fifth survey. For women in the 1973-78 cohort, pregnant emerged as a prevalent theme, while eating disappeared. Among women in the 1946-51 cohort, cancer, operation and medication emerged as prevalent themes, while for women in the 1921-26 cohort, the concept children disappeared, while family emerged. This analysis suggests that free-text comments are a valuable data source, suitable for content, thematic and narrative analysis, particularly when collected over time.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>23874784</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0068832</doi><tpages>e68832</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2013-07, Vol.8 (7), p.e68832-e68832 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1399533038 |
source | PubMed Central Free; Publicly Available Content Database; Sociological Abstracts |
subjects | Aging Analysis Australia Biology Cancer Children Computer Science Correlation analysis Datasets Drugs Ethics Families & family life Female Gender Health Status Health Surveys Higher education Homeless people Humans Longitudinal Studies Medicine Mental health Polls & surveys Population Population studies Population-based studies Pregnancy Qualitative research Quality of life Researchers Responses Science Policy Semantics Studies Surveys Surveys and Questionnaires Time Women Women's Health Womens health |
title | Quality, rigour and usefulness of free-text comments collected by a large population based longitudinal study - ALSWH |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T01%3A57%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quality,%20rigour%20and%20usefulness%20of%20free-text%20comments%20collected%20by%20a%20large%20population%20based%20longitudinal%20study%20-%20ALSWH&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Rich,%20Jane%20Louise&rft.date=2013-07-11&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e68832&rft.epage=e68832&rft.pages=e68832-e68832&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0068832&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA478325880%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-89660a87177e6408bdb8db3b67038754470606e87cf0f03d9a2fd145461e4b563%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1399533038&rft_id=info:pmid/23874784&rft_galeid=A478325880&rfr_iscdi=true |