Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To assess the impact of a consent form on the participation rate in a telephone survey about gambling and money.
Method: Four different consent forms were tested. The first consent form globally met the academic ethics committee requirements, while the second and third forms excluded some elements. Finally, the fourth form was similar to the introduction generally used by private survey firms.
Results: Even when the consent form required by academic ethics committees was shortened, the private firm introduction led to the best participation rate. However, participants who received the private firm introduction indicated that they wished they had been better informed before the interview started.
Conclusion: The discussion highlights the delicate situation of academic research wishing to meet ethics requirements as well as conduct valid and representative research.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/070674370905400307 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!