# How computer literacy and socioeconomic status affect attitudes toward a Web-based cohort: results from the NutriNet-Santé study

Camille Pouchieu, Caroline Mejean, Valentina Andreeva, Emmanuelle

Kesse-Guyot, Philippine Fassier, Pilar Galan, Serge Hercberg, Mathilde

Touvier

► To cite this version:

Camille Pouchieu, Caroline Mejean, Valentina Andreeva, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Philippine Fassier, et al.. How computer literacy and socioeconomic status affect attitudes toward a Web-based cohort: results from the NutriNet-Santé study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2015, 17 (2), pp.49-59. 10.2196/jmir.3813 . hal-02637842

HAL Id: hal-02637842

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02637842

Submitted on 28 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Original Paper

# How Computer Literacy and Socioeconomic Status Affect Attitudes Toward a Web-Based Cohort: Results From the NutriNet-Santé Study

Camille Pouchieu<fnref n="1" />, PhD; Caroline Méjean<fnref n="1" />, PhD; Valentina A Andreeva<fnref n="1" />, PhD; Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot<fnref n="1" />, PhD; Philippine Fassier<fnref n="1" />; Pilar Galan<fnref n="1" />, MD, PhD; Serge Hercberg<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, MD, PhD; Mathilde Touvier<fnref n="1" />, PhD

**Corresponding Author:**

Camille Pouchieu, PhD

Sorbonne Paris Cité, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Research Center, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN), Inserm U1153; Inra U1125; Cnam; Paris 13, 7 and 5 Universities

EREN, SMBH Paris 13, 74 rue Marcel Cachin

Bobigny cedex, 93017

France

Phone: 33 1 48 38 89 57

Fax: 33 1 48 38 89 31

Email: c.pouchieu@eren.smbh.univ-paris13.fr

Abstract

**Background:** In spite of the growing literature in the field of e-epidemiology, clear evidence about computer literacy or attitudes toward respondent burden among e-cohort participants is largely lacking.

**Objective:** We assessed the computer and Internet skills of participants in the NutriNet-Santé Web-based cohort. We then explored attitudes toward the study demands/respondent burden according to levels of computer literacy and sociodemographic status.

**Methods:** Self-reported data from 43,028 e-cohort participants were collected in 2013 via a Web-based questionnaire. We employed unconditional logistic and linear regression analyses.

**Results:** Approximately one-quarter of participants (23.79%, 10,235/43,028) reported being inexperienced in terms of computer use. Regarding attitudes toward participant burden, women tended to be more favorable (eg, "The overall website use is easy") than were men (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59-0.71, *P*<.001), whereas better educated participants (>12 years of schooling) were less likely to accept the demands associated with participation (eg, "I receive questionnaires too often") compared to their less educated counterparts (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.48-1.76, *P*<.001).

**Conclusions:** A substantial proportion of participants had low computer/Internet skills, suggesting that this does not represent a barrier to participation in Web-based cohorts. Our study also suggests that several subgroups of participants with lower computer skills (eg, women or those with lower educational level) might more readily accept the demands associated with participation in the Web cohort. These findings can help guide future Web-based research strategies.

(J Med Internet Res 2015;17(2):e34) doi:10.2196/jmir.3813

**KEYWORDS**

computer literacy; Internet; cohort study; attitudes

Introduction

The use of Web-based questionnaires in prospective epidemiological studies has increased steadily over the past decade [1-11], driven by substantial logistic simplification

(cost-effectiveness, convenience regarding place/time of survey completion, ease of converting data to an analyzable format) and scientific advantages (improved quality and quantity of exposure measurement, complex research designs, study of sensitive topics or rare conditions) of Web compared to

<footnote n="1">¹Sorbonne Paris Cité, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Research Center, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN), Inserm U1153; Inra U1125; Cnam; Paris 13, 7 and 5 Universities, Bobigny cedex, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Public Health Department, Avicenne Hospital, Bobigny, France</footnote>
traditional methods (paper-and-pencil questionnaires, face-to-face interviews). Other features, such as recruitment of very large samples and hard-to-reach populations (low socioeconomic strata, risky behavior profiles), quick returns, and data management facility and flexibility, are also strengths of e-epidemiology [12,13]. This medium for data collection is being increasingly favored given the growth of Web access and the use of personal computers [2]. In the United States, 75% of households were connected to the Internet in 2012 [14]. In France, this proportion was similar in 2012 (78%) compared to 54% in 2007 [15]. In this context, it remains unknown the extent to which low computer and Internet literacy represent a barrier to participation in Web-based studies. Very few Web-based epidemiological studies have provided information about the level of computer and Internet skills of their participants [16].

Another key question pertains to perceived respondent burden in Web-based studies (eg, regarding frequency and length of questionnaires) and its variability according to computer skills, age, gender, and the educational level of participants. Indeed, it has been shown that perceived ease and user-friendliness of the study website and the level of perceived difficulty of questionnaire completion may have a major impact on response and completion rates in e-epidemiology [17-19]. However, data are lacking in the literature regarding opinions and acceptance of respondent burden in Web-based studies and its correlation with computer skills of participants. Filling this knowledge gap would be useful for ongoing and future Web-based cohort studies, for instance, for improving and adapting the design of questionnaires according to the target population.

Thus, our objectives were (1) to assess computer and Internet skills of participants in a large Web-based cohort (the NutriNet-Santé study) and (2) to compare their attitude toward study demands according to sociodemographic background and computer literacy.

## Methods

### Participants

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study is the first large-scale Web cohort set up to investigate the relationships between nutrition and health in the general population [4]. It was launched in France in May 2009 to evaluate the determinants and characteristics of eating behavior and the relationship between nutrition and chronic disease risk. Participants are recruited by a vast multimedia campaign. Inclusion criteria are age ≥18 years and access to the Internet. Registration and participation take place online using a dedicated and secure website. Participants receive regular emails informing them about a new questionnaire available for completion and communicating study results and newsletters. The study website also provides general information on health and nutrition topics and on scientific publications related to the cohort. Contact between investigators and study participants is established by the Internet (dedicated website and emails). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the French Institute for Health and Medical Research (IRB Inserm No 0000388FWA00005831) and the “Comission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés” (CNIL No 908450 and No 909216).

## Data Collection

Participants completed a baseline set of 5 self-administered, Web-based questionnaires on sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics, anthropometrics, dietary intake (using repeated 24-hour dietary records), and physical activity along with health status. Thereafter, these baseline questionnaires are administered each year to update the information. All these instruments have been tested against traditional assessment methods (paper questionnaires or interview by a health professional) [20-22].

Data on sociodemographic characteristics included age, gender, education, and occupation. In October 2013, participants were sent a computer literacy Web questionnaire in which they were asked to self-evaluate their level of computer skills (novice, inexperienced, experienced, or expert) and to report if they were able to perform specific computer/Internet tasks in order to evaluate their computer literacy profile. This questionnaire also aimed to gather information on perceived respondent burden in the NutriNet-Santé study (ease of website use, interest in the information section, acceptable frequency and completion time of the questionnaires, satisfaction with the communication between study staff and participants, potential interest in a NutriNet-Santé smartphone application). This questionnaire was not mandatory and no reminders were sent to nonresponders.

### Statistical Analyses

From the 123,984 participants included in the NutriNet-Santé study between May 2009 and October 2013, 43,028 individuals (34.70%) returned the optional questionnaire on computer skills and Internet use.

Sociodemographic characteristics are presented in a frequency/percent format for the entire sample: gender, age (<30 years, 30-44 years, 45-59 years, ≥60 years), educational level (>12 or ≤12 years of schooling), and occupational category (farmers, manual workers, employees, intermediate professions/ skilled office work, self-employed, managerial staff, never employed). Similarly, overall and task-specific computer skills are presented in a frequency/percent format.

Opinions about respondent burden in the NutriNet-Santé study were compared by multivariate unconditional logistic regression analyses according to sociodemographic characteristics (gender: women vs men; age: >50 years vs ≤50 years; education: >12 years vs ≤12 years of schooling) and self-evaluated level of computer skills (experienced-expert vs novice-inexperienced). Actual and self-perceived acceptable questionnaire completion times were compared by multivariate linear regression analyses according to the same sociodemographic characteristics and self-evaluated level of computer skills. These variables were log-transformed to improve normality. Adjusted means and standard errors (SE) were reported. Multivariate models were mutually adjusted for gender, age, educational level, and self-evaluated level of computer skills.

A *P* value <.05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were carried out with SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA).
## Results

Sociodemographic characteristics of the study population (N=43,028) are presented in Table 1. In all, 76.07% (32,731/43,028) of the participants were women and the mean age was 51.2 years (SD 14.5). The sample included 35.16%

(15,130/43,028) managerial staff, 28.37% (12,209/43,028) intermediate professions/skilled office work, 26.83% (11,544/43,028) technical/routine occupations, 2.83% (1217/43,028) self-employed, 2.77% (1191/43,028) farmers and manual workers, and 4.04% (1737/43,028) never-employed participants (current occupation or most recent job for retired or currently unemployed participants).

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Baseline characteristics of respondents to the computer literacy questionnaire, NutriNet-Santé cohort, France, 2013.</caption><thead><tr><th>Individual characteristics</th><th>French population,<sup>a</sup> (N=48,730,086)</th><th>Full NutriNet-Santé cohort, n (%) (N=123,984)</th><th>Respondents to the computer literacy questionnaire, n (%) (N=43,028)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Gender</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>52.4</td><td>96,912 (78.16)</td><td>32,731 (76.07)</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>47.6</td><td>27,072 (21.84)</td><td>10,297 (23.93)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Age categories (years)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;30</td><td>22.8</td><td>18,518 (14.94)</td><td>4298 (9.99)</td></tr><tr><td>30-44</td><td>24.8</td><td>40,432 (32.61)</td><td>10,626 (24.70)</td></tr><tr><td>45-59</td><td>24.8</td><td>35,923 (28.97)</td><td>13,623 (31.66)</td></tr><tr><td>≥60</td><td>27.6</td><td>29,111 (23.48)</td><td>14,481 (33.65)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Educational level</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Advanced/graduate degree (≥17 y of schooling)</td><td>13.0</td><td>40,274 (32.48)</td><td>14,457 (33.60)</td></tr><tr><td>Undergraduate degree (13-16 y of schooling)</td><td>11.9</td><td>36,579 (29.50)</td><td>12,663 (29.43)</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary degree (≤12 y of schooling)</td><td>17.6</td><td>43,070 (34.74)</td><td>14,526 (33.76)</td></tr><tr><td>Elementary degree (≤5 y of schooling)</td><td>40.2</td><td>2375 (1.92)</td><td>942 (2.19)</td></tr><tr><td>No degree</td><td>17.3</td><td>1686 (1.36)</td><td>440 (1.02)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Level of computer skills</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Expert</td><td></td><td></td><td>5365 (12.47)</td></tr><tr><td>Experienced</td><td></td><td></td><td>27,428 (63.74)</td></tr><tr><td>Novice</td><td></td><td></td><td>9288 (21.59)</td></tr><tr><td>Inexperienced</td><td></td><td></td><td>947 (2.20)</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Computer and Internet Skills

A substantial proportion of the participants (23.79%, 10,235/43,028) evaluated themselves as novice or inexperienced in computer use. This was illustrated by the description of

specific skills (Table 2). For instance, 36.42% (14,881/43,028) did not know usual keyboard shortcuts (eg, CTRL+C, CTRL+V), 38.74% (16,667/43,028) did not know how to post messages on discussion forums, and 37.53% (16,147/43,028) did not know how to place a telephone call by the Internet.

<footnote><sup>a</sup> National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), 2014.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Self-reported computer and Internet skills of participants (n=43,028), NutriNet-Santé Study, France, 2013.</caption><thead><tr><th>Self-reported computer and Internet skills</th><th>Positive responses, n (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Computer skills</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Copy or move a file or folder</td><td>39,693 (92.25)</td></tr><tr><td>Transfer files between a computer and a device (digital camera, USB stick, cell phone, etc)</td><td>37,827 (87.91)</td></tr><tr><td>Burn or copy a CD/DVD</td><td>32,466 (75.45)</td></tr><tr><td>Install new devices (modem, printer, scanner, webcam, etc)</td><td>31,465 (73.13)</td></tr><tr><td>Use basic arithmetic formulas in a spreadsheet (Excel, Open Office Calc, etc)</td><td>27,357 (63.58)</td></tr><tr><td>Create electronic presentation</td><td>25,102 (58.34)</td></tr><tr><td>Use keyboard shortcuts (CTRL+C, CTRL+V, CTRL+X, etc)</td><td>28,147 (65.42)</td></tr><tr><td>Compress/decompress (or zip) files</td><td>23,794 (55.30)</td></tr><tr><td>Install or update an operating system (Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows 8, Mac OS, Linux)</td><td>18,992 (44.14)</td></tr><tr><td>Change or check the configuration settings for a software</td><td>18,352 (42.65)</td></tr><tr><td>Upgrade a computer (desktop or laptop) by changing the hard disk or memory (RAM)</td><td>6614 (15.37)</td></tr><tr><td>Write a computer program (C, C++, PHP, HTML, Java, etc)</td><td>3359 (7.81)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Internet skills</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Use a search engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc)</td><td>42,288 (98.28)</td></tr><tr><td>Send emails with attached files (document, photo, etc)</td><td>41,333 (96.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Fill in administrative forms online</td><td>39,718 (92.31)</td></tr><tr><td>Buy or sell goods and services online</td><td>36,509 (84.85)</td></tr><tr><td>Use instant messaging software (Yahoo, Facebook, Skype, Windows Messenger, Google Talk, etc)</td><td>29,522 (68.61)</td></tr><tr><td>Phone by connecting to the Internet (Skype, Yahoo Messenger, Google Talk, etc)</td><td>26,881 (62.47)</td></tr><tr><td>Post messages in online discussion forum or chat site</td><td>26,361 (61.26)</td></tr><tr><td>Download movies, music, games, etc</td><td>26,019 (60.47)</td></tr><tr><td>Change the security parameters of a Web browser</td><td>24,019 (55.82)</td></tr><tr><td>Upload text, games, photos, movies or music (on social networks like Facebook or Twitter, for example)</td><td>21,025 (48.86)</td></tr><tr><td>Create and manage a blog</td><td>10,158 (23.61)</td></tr><tr><td>Create and manage a website</td><td>6435 (14.96)</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Opinions and Attitudes Toward Study Demands

Overall acceptance of the study was high: 94.50% (40,662/43,028) reported that the website use was easy, 91.32% (39,293/43,028) were satisfied with the current frequency of

questionnaire administration, and 25.22% (10,852/43,028) reported that even a higher frequency than the one currently employed (ie, 1 questionnaire/month) would be acceptable (Tables 3 and 4).
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Opinions and attitudes toward the NutriNet-Santé Study demands according to gender and age, NutriNet-Santé Study, France, 2013.ª</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Opinions and attitudes</th><th rowspan="2">n (%)</th><th colspan="2">Gender (female vs male)</th><th colspan="2">Age (&gt;50 y vs ≤50 y)</th></tr><tr><th>OR (95% CI)</th><th>P<sup>b</sup></th><th>OR (95% CI)</th><th>P<sup>b</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>The overall website use is easy</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td><td></td><td>.06</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>40,662 (94.50)</td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2366 (5.50)</td><td>0.65 (0.59, 0.71)</td><td></td><td>1.09 (1.00, 1.19)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>The information section is interesting</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>29,231 (67.93)</td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2042 (4.75)</td><td>0.61 (0.55, 0.68)</td><td></td><td>0.62 (0.56, 0.68)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I don't read these sections</td><td>11,755 (27.32)</td><td>0.90 (0.86, 0.95)</td><td></td><td>0.52 (0.50, 0.55)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>What do you think about the frequency of the questionnaire mailing?</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>The current frequency suits me</td><td>39,293 (91.32)</td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I receive questionnaires too often</td><td>2900 (6.74)</td><td>0.80 (0.73, 0.87)</td><td></td><td>1.25 (1.15, 1.35)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I would like to receive questionnaires more often</td><td>835 (1.94)</td><td>1.01 (0.85, 1.21)</td><td></td><td>0.30 (0.25, 0.35)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>What is the maximum acceptable frequency to complete a questionnaire?</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>.07</td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Once per week</td><td>2126 (4.94)</td><td>0.96 (0.86, 1.07)</td><td></td><td>0.32 (0.29, 0.36)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Once every 2 weeks</td><td>8726 (20.28)</td><td>0.99 (0.94, 1.06)</td><td></td><td>0.51 (0.49, 0.54)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Once per month (ie, current frequency)</td><td>24,936 (57.95)</td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Once every 3 months</td><td>6138 (14.27)</td><td>1.00 (0.94, 1.07)</td><td></td><td>1.37 (1.29, 1.46)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Once every 6 months</td><td>829 (1.93)</td><td>0.75 (0.64, 0.88)</td><td></td><td>1.53 (1.31, 1.80)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Once per year</td><td>273 (0.63)</td><td>0.67 (0.52, 0.87)</td><td></td><td>1.85 (1.39, 2.47)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Would you prefer to be contacted by means other than the Internet?</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes, by mail</td><td>2206 (5.13)</td><td>1.35 (1.20, 1.52)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>0.57 (0.52, 0.62)</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, by phone</td><td>1123 (2.61)</td><td>0.83 (0.73, 0.96)</td><td>.01</td><td>0.78 (0.69, 0.89)</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, with a personal appointment</td><td>1441 (3.35)</td><td>0.77 (0.69, 0.87)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>1.08 (0.96, 1.21)</td><td>.20</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, at a meeting</td><td>1037 (2.41)</td><td>1.31 (1.12, 1.53)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>1.89 (1.64, 2.17)</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>No, the current method suits me</td><td>37,221 (86.50)</td><td>0.96 (0.89, 1.02)</td><td>.20</td><td>1.16 (1.10, 1.24)</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Are you interested in the development of a NutriNet smartphone application?</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>8970 (20.85)</td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>27,385 (63.64)</td><td>1.25 (1.18, 1.33)</td><td></td><td>3.24 (3.07, 3.42)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I don't know</td><td>6673 (15.51)</td><td>1.10 (1.02, 1.19)</td><td></td><td>2.28 (2.13, 2.44)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>ª Logistic regression analyses mutually adjusted for gender, age, education, and level of computer skills.</footnote>

<footnote>ᵇ Tests for linear trend were performed using the ordinal score for each category. *P* values for trend are reported.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 4.** Opinions and attitudes toward the NutriNet-Santé Study demands according to education and self-evaluated level of computer skills, NutriNet-Santé Study, France, 2013.ª</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Opinions and attitudes</th><th rowspan="2">n (%)</th><th colspan="2">Educational level (&gt;12 y vs ≤12 y of schooling)</th><th colspan="2">Level of computer skills (experienced vs novice)</th></tr><tr><th>OR (95%CI)</th><th>P<sup>b</sup></th><th>OR (95%CI)</th><th>P<sup>b</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>The overall website use is easy</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>40,662 (94.50)</td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2366 (5.50)</td><td>1.45 (1.32, 1.59)</td><td></td><td>0.82 (0.74, 0.91)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>The information section is interesting</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>29,231 (67.93)</td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2042 (4.75)</td><td>2.05 (1.85, 2.28)</td><td></td><td>1.16 (1.03, 1.31)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I don't read these sections</td><td>11,755 (27.32)</td><td>2.17 (2.07, 2.28)</td><td></td><td>1.14 (1.07, 1.20)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>What do you think about the frequency of the questionnaire mailing?</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td><td></td><td>.10</td></tr><tr><td>The current frequency suits me</td><td>39,293 (91.32)</td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I receive questionnaires too often</td><td>2900 (6.74)</td><td>1.62 (1.48, 1.76)</td><td></td><td>0.95 (0.86, 1.04)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I would like to receive questionnaires more often</td><td>835 (1.94)</td><td>0.61 (0.53, 0.70)</td><td></td><td>1.18 (0.98, 1.42)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>What is the maximum acceptable frequency to complete a questionnaire?</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Once per week</td><td>2126 (4.94)</td><td>0.68 (0.62, 0.74)</td><td></td><td>1.14 (1.01, 1.28)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Once every 2 weeks</td><td>8726 (20.28)</td><td>0.98 (0.93, 1.04)</td><td></td><td>1.18 (1.11, 1.26)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Once per month (ie, current frequency)</td><td>24,936 (57.95)</td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Once every 3 months</td><td>6138 (14.27)</td><td>1.03 (0.97, 1.09)</td><td></td><td>0.95 (0.89, 1.01)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Once every 6 months</td><td>829 (1.93)</td><td>1.15 (0.99, 1.33)</td><td></td><td>0.83 (0.71, 0.98)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Once per year</td><td>273 (0.63)</td><td>1.04 (0.82, 1.35)</td><td></td><td>0.87 (0.66, 1.15)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Would you prefer to be contacted by means other than the Internet?</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes, by mail</td><td>2206 (5.13)</td><td>0.70 (0.64, 0.76)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>0.50 (0.46, 0.55)</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, by phone</td><td>1123 (2.61)</td><td>0.85 (0.75, 0.96)</td><td>.01</td><td>0.67 (0.59, 0.77)</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, with a personal appointment</td><td>1441 (3.35)</td><td>0.97 (0.86, 1.08)</td><td>.50</td><td>0.71 (0.63, 0.80)</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, at a meeting</td><td>1037 (2.41)</td><td>0.87 (0.77, 0.99)</td><td>.04</td><td>0.97 (0.84, 1.12)</td><td>.70</td></tr><tr><td>No, the current method suits me</td><td>37,221 (86.50)</td><td>1.25 (1.18, 1.33)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>1.62 (1.52, 1.72)</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Are you interested in the development of a NutriNet smartphone application?</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>.001</td><td></td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>8970 (20.85)</td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td><td>1.00 (Reference)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>27,385 (63.64)</td><td>1.00 (0.95, 1.06)</td><td></td><td>0.40 (0.38, 0.43)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I don't know</td><td>6673 (15.51)</td><td>0.90 (0.84, 0.97)</td><td></td><td>0.52 (0.48, 0.57)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

In all, 86.50% (37,221/43,028) of the respondents preferred the current communication modes (email and Internet website) and did not wish to be contacted by any other means (telephone, postal mail, or face-to-face interaction).

Despite their relatively lower computer skills (*P*<.001), women were more positive than men regarding facility of use of the study website ("The overall website use is easy" OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59-0.71, *P*<.001), reported more interest in the information section (*P*<.001) and supported the current frequency of questionnaire administration (*P*<.001) (Table 3). Alternative contact modes (eg, postal mail or participant in-person meetings) were more frequently endorsed by women, whereas other

communication modalities (eg, telephone or direct appointments with study staff) were more likely to be endorsed by men.

Older participants (>50 years) were more interested in the information section on the website (*P*<.001, Table 3) yet also more inclined to report dissatisfaction with the number of administered questionnaires ("I receive questionnaires too often" ) compared with participants aged 50 years or younger (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.35, *P*<.001).

Despite having higher computer skills (*P*<.001), participants with higher educational levels appeared to be more demanding regarding the study format compared with participants with ≤12

<footnote>ª Logistic regression analyses mutually adjusted for gender, age, education and level of computer skills.</footnote>

<footnote>ᵇ Tests for linear trend were performed using the ordinal score for each category. *P* values for trend are reported.</footnote>
years of schooling: they were more likely to judge unfavorably the ease of use of the website (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.32-1.59, *P*<.001) and reported lower interest in the information section as well as dissatisfaction with the number of administered questionnaires (*P*<.001 for all, Table 4). In contrast, the Internet communication mode was preferred over more direct contacts by participants with higher education (*P*<.001).

Participants with higher computer skills were more likely to feel comfortable with the website and with online communication regarding their study participation (both *P*<.001, Table 4).

Overall, 20.85% (8970/43,028) of participants reported being interested in the development of a NutriNet-Santé smartphone

app. Men, younger people, and participants with higher self-reported computer skills were more interested in such an app (all *P*<.001).

## Actual and Self-Perceived Acceptable Questionnaire Completion Time

Questionnaire completion time was higher for women, older participants, those with lower educational levels, and lower computer skills (Tables 5 and 6). These categories of participants were more disposed to spend time answering questionnaires, with higher acceptable completion durations declared (*P*=.004 for gender and *P*<.001 for age, educational level, and computer skills).

<table><caption>**Table 5.** Comparison of mean response time for questionnaires (in minutes) according to gender and age, NutriNet-Santé Study, France, 2013.ª</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Type of questionnaire</th><th colspan="2">Gender</th><th colspan="2">Male</th><th colspan="4">Age</th></tr><tr><th>Female</th><th rowspan="2">SEM</th><th rowspan="2">Mean</th><th rowspan="2">SEM</th><th rowspan="2">P</th><th colspan="2">&gt;50 y</th><th colspan="2">≤50 y</th></tr><tr><th>Mean</th><th>Mean</th><th>SEM</th><th>SEM</th><th>Mean</th><th>SEM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sociodemographic</td><td>14.0</td><td>0.05</td><td>13.3</td><td>0.09</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>14.9</td><td>0.06</td><td>12.4</td><td>0.08</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Anthropometric</td><td>10.9</td><td>0.05</td><td>10.4</td><td>0.08</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>11.6</td><td>0.05</td><td>9.6</td><td>0.07</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Health</td><td>12.1</td><td>0.05</td><td>12.0</td><td>0.09</td><td>.40</td><td>13.6</td><td>0.06</td><td>10.5</td><td>0.08</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Physical activity</td><td>12.2</td><td>0.05</td><td>11.4</td><td>0.08</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>12.7</td><td>0.06</td><td>10.9</td><td>0.07</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Dietary intake</td><td>22.6</td><td>0.08</td><td>22.5</td><td>0.15</td><td>.50</td><td>24.5</td><td>0.10</td><td>20.5</td><td>0.13</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Completion time deemed acceptable for a NutriNet-Santé questionnaire</td><td>33.9</td><td>0.44</td><td>31.6</td><td>0.77</td><td>.004</td><td>36.4</td><td>0.51</td><td>29.2</td><td>0.68</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 6.** Comparison of mean response time for questionnaires (in minutes) according to educational level and self-evaluated computer skills, NutriNet-Santé Study, France, 2013.ª</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Type of questionnaire</th><th colspan="4">Educational level</th><th colspan="4">Level of computer skills</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">&gt;12 y</th><th colspan="2">≤12 y</th><th rowspan="2">P</th><th colspan="2">Experienced</th><th colspan="2">Novice</th></tr><tr><th>Mean</th><th>SEM</th><th>Mean</th><th>SEM</th><th>Mean</th><th>SEM</th><th>Mean</th><th>SEM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sociodemographic</td><td>12.9</td><td>0.07</td><td>14.4</td><td>0.08</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>12.7</td><td>0.05</td><td>14.6</td><td>0.09</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Anthropometric</td><td>9.6</td><td>0.06</td><td>11.6</td><td>0.07</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>9.9</td><td>0.05</td><td>11.3</td><td>0.08</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Health</td><td>10.9</td><td>0.07</td><td>13.2</td><td>0.08</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>11.2</td><td>0.05</td><td>13.0</td><td>0.09</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Physical activity</td><td>11.2</td><td>0.06</td><td>12.4</td><td>0.07</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>11.0</td><td>0.05</td><td>12.6</td><td>0.08</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Dietary intake</td><td>22.5</td><td>0.11</td><td>22.5</td><td>0.12</td><td>.90</td><td>21.0</td><td>0.09</td><td>24.0</td><td>0.15</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>Completion time deemed acceptable for a NutriNet-Santé questionnaire</td><td>29.3</td><td>0.55</td><td>36.3</td><td>0.64</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>29.7</td><td>0.44</td><td>35.9</td><td>0.77</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Discussion

To our knowledge, this study is the first to shed light on computer skills and attitudes toward study demands of a large sample of French volunteers in a Web-based cohort. The main results showed that a substantial proportion of the participants (approximately one-quarter) declared being inexperienced or novice in computer use. Women tended to be more positive

than men toward the study and its format, whereas participants with higher educational levels were less likely to be satisfied with the study demands, notably regarding the frequency and completion time of the questionnaires.

A key question in e-epidemiology pertains to the extent to which low computer skills represents a barrier to participation. Every year, the European Union Commission collects data on the digital skills of the population, measured by asking individuals

<footnote>ª Linear regression analyses mutually adjusted for gender, age, education, and level of computer skills. Mean completion time of questionnaires was log-transformed to improve normality.</footnote>

<footnote>ª Linear regression analyses mutually adjusted for gender, age, education, and level of computer skills. Mean completion time of questionnaires was log-transformed to improve normality.</footnote>
if they had ever performed certain computer and/or Internet-related activities (Eurostat). In their 2012 report, 41% of the French population reported having either low or no computer skills [23]. The proportion of novice/inexperienced computer users was lower in our study population (24%). This was expected because access to the Internet was an inclusion criterion and since higher socio-professional categories were slightly (and commonly) overrepresented. Individuals in the latter category may have acquired a more practical and administrative use of the Web [24] given its regular use in the framework of their professional activity or during their university studies. Likewise, the proportion of NutriNet-Santé participants who could “install new devices,” “compress/decompress files,” or “use basic arithmetic formulas in a spreadsheet” was higher than observed in the French general population [25,26]. Our study population seemed to be better qualified for a more practical/working use of the Internet than for a leisure/entertainment use, with higher proportions of participants who could “send emails with attached files” or “fill in administrative forms online” and lower proportions of participants who could “download movies, music, games” or “upload texts, games, photos, movies, or music.” The older age of our cohort compared to the French general population probably contributes to explain these differences. However, a notable finding was that the proportion of computer novice/inexperienced participants was non-negligible suggesting that participation in Web-based cohorts is not restricted to computer experts. Given the rapid increase in digital skills among EU citizens [23], there is a marked trend of ever decreasing barriers related to computer literacy.

Interestingly, several categories of participants with lower computer skills (eg, women or participants with lower educational levels) were more positive toward the study and more accepting of the respondent burden. Indeed, overall satisfaction was high regarding the design of the study, with the majority of participants reporting support for parameters that are currently in effect in terms of questionnaire frequency (about 1/month) and time needed for completion (less than 30 minutes/questionnaire). However, sociodemographic characteristics modulated these opinions. In addition to their higher participation (76%, which was expected for a study related to nutrition questions), females tended to be more motivated and satisfied by the study than were their male counterparts. Unlike older adults (>50 years), younger adults felt more comfortable with the website and the questionnaires. Interestingly, participants with higher levels of education were somewhat less satisfied with the demands of study participation. This could be explained by several reasons. First, participants with higher educational levels are usually exposed to a variety of digital activities and Internet websites during their professional activities and their leisure time [24] and, thus, may be more demanding on the design and the usability of questionnaires. Second, as they spend more time on the Internet [27], they are more often deluged with all types of questionnaires via spam, making them less receptive to the questionnaires of the study. These results provide useful information for Web-based study protocol optimization. For instance, when applicable, ancillary protocols that are optional and do not necessarily necessitate the recruitment of representative

subsamples of the cohort should only be geared toward the most receptive categories of participants identified in this study.

The proportion of respondents who preferred the current communication modes (email and Internet website compared to telephone, postal mail, or face-to-face interactions) was high (87%), especially in older participants, better educated and with higher computer skills. However, unlike some previous studies [28-30], this one was not designed as an experiment to test response rates according to survey mode, but only to evaluate the overall satisfaction level of participants regarding the survey mode. Thus, this figure should be toned down by the fact prior research indicates that respondents tend to prefer the mode they were interviewed in [31]. Overall, the proportion of participants interested in the development of a NutriNet-Santé smartphone app was relatively limited (21%). In fact, smartphone use in our study (34% in 2013, data not shown) was less widespread than in the general French population (50%) [32]. In our sample, interest in a smartphone app was strongly modulated by several parameters; notably, men and younger adults were those who demonstrated the highest interest. Thus, given the opportunity to participate in a research study via a smartphone application would provide a strategic opportunity to recruit participants who are currently underrepresented in the cohort.

Strengths of this study pertain to the use of a large population-based cohort sample and availability of detailed information on computer/Internet skills and attitude toward demands of an Internet-based study, in the context of growing interest in e-epidemiology coupled with scarce knowledge about these parameters.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, caution is needed in extrapolating our results to all Web-based investigations because the NutriNet-Santé study involved a sample of volunteers who accepted to participate in a survey on nutrition and health. Compared to national estimates [33], the NutriNet-Santé study included more women, older participants, and individuals belonging to higher socio-professional categories. Second, response rate to this specific nonmandatory computer/Internet skills questionnaire was 35%. In fact, nonresponse to this questionnaire did not alter the enrollment status of the participants. Compared to nonresponders, responders were more likely to be men, younger, and better educated. Thus, we may have underestimated the proportions of novice/inexperienced computer users. In addition, the questionnaire was administered 4 years after the launch of the cohort. Thus, it is possible that this survey underrepresented participants who might have dropped out of the study due to difficulties related to computer/Internet use. As is usually the case in prospective cohorts in which mandatory and nonmandatory questionnaires are sent to participants, the level of involvement varies between participants. When the computer literacy questionnaire was administered in October 2013, 78,380 participants were regular respondents to optional questionnaires (at least 1 questionnaire filled in over the last 6 months). Based on this population, response rate to the present questionnaire was higher (55%). Lastly, a social desirability bias may have occurred since computer and Internet skills were self-evaluated, which may have led to an overestimation of expertise. However,
our method was similar to the one used by the EU Commission for such assessment [23].

In conclusion, this study provided new information on computer skills and attitude toward study demands according to sociodemographic profiles of participants involved in a large population-based Web cohort. These results are useful for optimizing current and future Web-based investigations, in the context of rapid development of e-epidemiology and the currently scarce e-methodology literature. A substantial part of the study population reported low computer/Internet skills,

suggesting that this characteristic does not constitute a barrier to participation in Web-based cohorts. The finding further suggested that several categories of participants with lower computer skills (eg, women or participants with lower educational levels) were more positive toward the study and less reluctant to comply with its demands. This study also highlighted that developing a dedicated smartphone app may boost interest in participation among categories of participants who are relatively less represented in health-related e-cohorts, such as men and young adults.

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank Younes Esseddik, Paul Flanzy, Mohand Ait Oufella, Yasmina Chelghoum, and Than Duong Van (computer scientists); Florence Charpentier (dietitian); Elise Martin (communication assistant); Nathalie Arnault, Véronique Gourlet, Fabien Szabo, Laurent Bourhis, and Stephen Besseau (statisticians); and Rachida Mehroug (logistics assistant) for their technical contribution to the NutriNet-Santé study.

This work was supported by the following public institutions: Ministère de la Santé, Institut de Veille Sanitaire (InVS), Institut National de la Prévention et de l'Éducation pour la Santé (INPES), Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (FRM), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (CNAM) and Université Paris 13.

## Authors' Contributions

Contributors CP and MT designed the research; CP, MT, and SH conducted the research; CP analyzed the data and led the writing; MT supervised the study; CM, VAA, EKG, PF, PG, SH, and MT contributed to the data interpretation and revised each draft for important intellectual content; MT had primary responsibility for the final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

## References

1. Turner C, Bain C, Schlüter PJ, Yorkston E, Bogossian F, McClure R, NursesMidwives e-cohort Group. Cohort Profile: The Nurses and Midwives e-Cohort Study--a novel electronic longitudinal study. Int J Epidemiol 2009 Feb;38(1):53-60 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1093/ije/dym294] [Medline: 18202083]

2. Smith B, Smith TC, Gray GC, Ryan MA, Millennium Cohort Study Team. When epidemiology meets the Internet: Web-based surveys in the Millennium Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol 2007 Dec 1;166(11):1345-1354 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm212] [Medline: 17728269]

3. Russell CW, Boggs DA, Palmer JR, Rosenberg L. Use of a web-based questionnaire in the Black Women's Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 2010 Dec 1;172(11):1286-1291 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq310] [Medline: 20937635]

4. Hercberg S, Castetbon K, Czernichow S, Malon A, Mejean C, Kesse E, et al. The Nutrinet-Santé Study: a web-based prospective study on the relationship between nutrition and health and determinants of dietary patterns and nutritional status. BMC Public Health 2010;10:242 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-242] [Medline: 20459807]

5. Pizzi C, De Stavola BL, Pearce N, Lazzarato F, Ghiotti P, Merletti F, et al. Selection bias and patterns of confounding in cohort studies: the case of the NINFEA web-based birth cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health 2012 Nov;66(11):976-981. [doi: 10.1136/jech-2011-200065] [Medline: 22147750]

6. Gallacher J, Collins R, Elliott P, Palmer S, Burton P, Mitchell C, et al. A platform for the remote conduct of gene-environment interaction studies. PLoS One 2013;8(1):e54331 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054331] [Medline: 23349852]

7. Bajardi P, Vespignani A, Funk S, Eames KT, Edmunds WJ, Turbelin C, et al. Determinants of follow-up participation in the internet-based European Influenza surveillance platform Influenzanet. J Med Internet Res 2014 Mar;16(3):e78 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.3010] [Medline: 24613818]

8. Formica M, Kabbara K, Clark R, McAlindon T. Can clinical trials requiring frequent participant contact be conducted over the Internet? Results from an online randomized controlled trial evaluating a topical ointment for herpes labialis. J Med Internet Res 2004 Feb 17;6(1):e6 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.1.e6] [Medline: 15111272]

9. Gray GC, Chesbrough KB, Ryan MA, Amoroso P, Boyko EJ, Gackstetter GD, Millennium Cohort Study Group. The millennium Cohort Study: a 21-year prospective cohort study of 140,000 military personnel. Mil Med 2002 Jun;167(6):483-488. [Medline: 12099084]
10. McAlindon T, Formica M, Kabbara K, LaValley M, Lehmer M. Conducting clinical trials over the internet: feasibility study. BMJ 2003 Aug 30;327(7413):484-487 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7413.484] [Medline: 12946971]

11. Link MW, Mokdad AH. Alternative modes for health surveillance surveys. Epidemiology 2005;16(5):701-704. [doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000172138.67080.7f]

12. Ekman A, Litton JE. New times, new needs; e-epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol 2007;22(5):285-292. [doi: 10.1007/s10654-007-9119-0] [Medline: 17505896]

13. Schatzkin A, Subar AF, Moore S, Park Y, Potischman N, Thompson FE, et al. Observational epidemiologic studies of nutrition and cancer: the next generation (with better observation). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009 Apr;18(4):1026-1032 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-1129] [Medline: 19336550]

14. United States Census Bureau. Computer and Internet Access in the United States. 2012. URL: https://www.census.gov/hhes/computer/ [accessed 2014-08-27] [WebCite Cache ID 6S8RdgLMq]

15. INSEE (Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques). L'internet de plus en plus prisé, l'internaute de plus en plus mobile. 2013. URL: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?ref_id=ip1452 [accessed 2014-08-27] [WebCite Cache ID 6S8Rwld58]

16. Mathew M, Morrow JR, Frierson GM, Bain TM. Assessing digital literacy in web-based physical activity surveillance: the WIN study. Am J Health Promot 2011 Nov;26(2):90-95. [doi: 10.4278/ajhp.091001-QUAN-320] [Medline: 22040389]

17. van Gelder MM, Bretveld RW, Roeleveld N. Web-based questionnaires: the future in epidemiology? Am J Epidemiol 2010 Dec 1;172(11):1292-1298 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq291] [Medline: 20880962]

18. Ekman A, Klint A, Dickman PW, Adami HO, Litton JE. Optimizing the design of web-based questionnaires--experience from a population-based study among 50,000 women. Eur J Epidemiol 2007;22(5):293-300. [doi: 10.1007/s10654-006-9091-0] [Medline: 17206467]

19. Casey TWPoropat A. Beauty is more than screen deep: Improving the web survey respondent experience through socially-present and aesthetically-pleasing user interfaces. Comput Hum Behav 2014;30:153-163.

20. Vergnaud AC, Touvier M, Méjean C, Kesse-Guyot E, Pollet C, Malon A, et al. Agreement between web-based and paper versions of a socio-demographic questionnaire in the NutriNet-Santé study. Int J Public Health 2011 Aug;56(4):407-417. [doi: 10.1007/s00038-011-0257-5] [Medline: 21538094]

21. Touvier M, Méjean C, Kesse-Guyot E, Pollet C, Malon A, Castetbon K, et al. Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire. Eur J Epidemiol 2010 May;25(5):287-296. [doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9433-9] [Medline: 20191377]

22. Touvier M, Kesse-Guyot E, Méjean C, Pollet C, Malon A, Castetbon K, et al. Comparison between an interactive web-based self-administered 24 h dietary record and an interview by a dietitian for large-scale epidemiological studies. Br J Nutr 2011 Apr;105(7):1055-1064. [doi: 10.1017/S0007114510004617] [Medline: 21080983]

23. Eurostat. Digital Agenda Scoreboard: France: Internet usage and digital skills- Report. 2013. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/france [accessed 2014-08-27] [WebCite Cache ID 6S8SBFw9c]

24. CREDOC (Centre de Recherche pour l'Etude et l'Observation des Conditions de vie). Enquête « Conditions de vie et Aspirations des Français » La diffusion des technologies de l'information et de la communication dans la société française. 2012. URL: http://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/etude-credoc-2008-101208.pdf [accessed 2014-08-27] [WebCite Cache ID 6S8SzNTN2]

25. Eurostat. Individuals' level of computer skills. 2014. URL: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset-isoc_sk_cskl_i&lang=en [WebCite Cache ID 6S8STYcZf]

26. Eurostat. Individuals' level of Internet skills. 2014. URL: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset-isoc_sk_iskl_i&lang=en [WebCite Cache ID 6S8SaIBNj]

27. US Census Bureau, US Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration. Computer and Internet Use in the United States. 2013. URL: http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-569.pdf [accessed 2014-08-27] [WebCite Cache ID 6S8SfFvNG]

28. Diment K, Garrett-Jones S. How demographic characteristics affect mode preference in a postal/Web mixed-mode survey of Australian researchers. Social Science Computer Review 2007 Aug 01;25(3):410-417. [doi: 10.1177/0894439306295393]

29. Shih T, Fan X. Response rates and mode preferences in Web-mail mixed-mode surveys: a meta-analysis. Int J Internet Science 2007;2:59-82.

30. Olson K, Smyth JD, Wood HM. Does giving people their preferred survey mode actually increase survey participation rates? An experimental examination. Public Opinion Quarterly 2012 Aug 02;76(4):611-635. [doi: 10.1093/poq/nfs024]

31. Millar M, O'Neill A, Dillman D. Are Mode Preferences Real?. Washington, DC: Social and Economic Sciences Research Center; 2009 Feb. URL: http://www.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers/2009/Tech%20Report%20FINAL%20Feb%2023.pdf [accessed 2014-08-27] [WebCite Cache ID 6S8Sjlmbp]

32. Deloitte. Etude sur les usages mobiles. 2013. URL: http://www.deloitterecrute.fr/sites/www.deloitterecrute.fr/files/etude/1685/etude_sur_susages_mobiles_2013.pdf [accessed 2014-08-27] [WebCite Cache ID 6S8TK5kOx]

33. INSEE (Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques). Population by sex and age on 1st January, France except Mayotte. 2014. URL: http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/
detail.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=bilan-demo&page=donnees-detaillees/bilan-demo/pop_age2b.htm [WebCite Cache ID
6S8T9kEAC]

**Abbreviations**

CNAM: Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers

FRM: Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale

INPES: Institut National de la Prévention et de l'Education pour la Santé

INRA: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique

INSERM: Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale

InVS: Institut de Veille Sanitaire

SEM: standard error of the mean

Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 02.09.14; peer-reviewed by D Paolotti, V Kaliraman; comments to author 23.10.14; revised version
received 18.11.14; accepted 27.11.14; published 02.02.15

Please cite as:

Pouchieu C, Méjean C, Andreeva VA, Kesse-Guyot E, Fassier P, Galan P, Hercberg S, Touvier M

How Computer Literacy and Socioeconomic Status Affect Attitudes Toward a Web-Based Cohort: Results From the NutriNet-Santé
Study

J Med Internet Res 2015;17(2):e34

URL: http://www.jmir.org/2015/2/e34/

doi: 10.2196/jmir.3813

PMID: 25648178

©Camille Pouchieu, Caroline Méjean, Valentina A Andreeva, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Philippine Fassier, Pilar Galan, Serge Hercberg, Mathilde Touvier. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 02.02.2015. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.