RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Did people really drink bleach to prevent COVID-19? A tale of problematic respondents and a guide for measuring rare events in survey data
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.12.11.20246694
DO 10.1101/2020.12.11.20246694
A1 Litman, Leib
A1 Rosen, Zohn
A1 Rosenzweig, Cheskie
A1 Weinberger-Litman, Sarah L.
A1 Moss, Aaron J.
A1 Robinson, Jonathan
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/11/2020.12.11.20246694.abstract
AB Society is becoming increasingly dependent on survey research. However, surveys can be impacted by participants who are non-attentive, respond randomly to survey questions, and misrepresent who they are and their true attitudes. The impact that such respondents can have on public health research has rarely been systematically examined. In this study we examine whether Americans began to engage in dangerous cleaning practices to avoid Covid-19 infection. Prior reports have suggested that people began to engage in highly dangerous cleaning practices during the Covid-19 pandemic, including ingesting household cleansers such as bleach. In a series of studies totaling close to 1400 respondents, we show that 80-90% of reports of household cleanser ingestion are made by problematic respondents. These respondents report impossible claims such as ‘recently having had a fatal heart attack’ and ‘eating concrete for its iron content’ at a similar rate to ingesting household cleaners. Additionally, respondents’ frequent misreading or misinterpreting the intent of questions accounted for the rest of such claims. Once inattentive, mischievous, and careless respondents are taken out of the analytic sample we find no evidence that people ingest cleansers. The relationship between dangerous cleaning practices and health outcomes also becomes non-significant once problematic respondents are taken out of the analytic sample. These results show that reported ingestion of household cleaners and other similar dangerous practices are an artifact of problematic respondent bias. The implications of these findings for public health and medical survey research, as well as best practices for avoiding problematic respondents in surveys are discussed.Competing Interest StatementMultiple authors of this manuscript [L.L., C.R., A.M., & J.R.] have the following potential competing interest: these authors are employed at Prime Research Solutions, the company that owns CloudResearch. CloudResearch provides researchers with access to online research participants and tools that make it easy to run online studies and maintain data quality.Funding StatementThere was no external funding for this research.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Our research was approved by IntegReview, an independent institutional review board that reviews research involving human subjects.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData are available upon request.