Reaching Adolescent Gay, Bisexual, and Queer Men Online: Development and Refinement of a National Recruitment Strategy

Abstract

BackgroundUsing social networking websites to recruit research participants is increasingly documented in the literature, although few studies have leveraged these sites to reach those younger than 18 years.ObjectiveTo discuss the development and refinement of a recruitment protocol to reach and engage adolescent gay, bisexual, and other teenaged men who have sex with men (AGBM). Participants were recruited for development and evaluation activities related to Guy2Guy, a text messaging–based human immunodeficiency virus infection prevention program.MethodsEligibility criteria included being between 14 to 18 years old; being a cisgender male; self-identifying as gay, bisexual, and/or queer; being literate in English, exclusively owning a cell phone, enrolled in an unlimited text messaging plan, intending to keep their current phone number over the next 6 months, and having used text messaging for at least the past 6 months. Recruitment experiences and subsequent steps to refine the Internet-based recruitment strategy are discussed for 4 research activities: online focus groups, content advisory team, beta test, and randomized controlled trial (RCT). Recruitment relied primarily on Facebook advertising. To a lesser extent, Google AdWords and promotion through partner organizations working with AGBM youth were also utilized.ResultsFacebook advertising strategies were regularly adjusted based on preidentified recruitment targets for race, ethnicity, urban-rural residence, and sexual experience. The result was a diverse sample of participants, of whom 30% belonged to a racial minority and 20% were Hispanic. Facebook advertising was the most cost-effective method, and it was also able to reach diverse recruitment goals: recruitment for the first focus group cost an average of US $2.50 per enrolled participant, and it took 9 days to enroll 40 participants; the second focus group cost an average of US $6.96 per enrolled participant, and it took 11 days to enroll 40 participants. Recruitment for the first content advisory team cost an average of US $32.52 per enrolled participant; the second cost US $29.52 per participant. Both recruitment drives required 10 days to enroll 24 participants. For the beta test, recruitment cost an average of US $17.19 per enrolled participant, and it took 16 days to complete enrollment of 20 participants. For the RCT, recruitment cost an average of US $12.54 per enrolled participant, and it took 148 days to enroll 302 participants. Google AdWords campaigns did not result in any enrolled participants of whom the research staff members were aware.ConclusionsInternet-based strategies can be a cost-efficient means to recruit and retain hard-to-reach populations from across the country. With real-time monitoring of participant demographic characteristics, diverse samples can be achieved. Although Facebook advertising was particularly successful in this study, alternative social media strategies can be explored in future research as these media are ever-changing.

Sensitive Health Topics With Underserved Patient Populations: Methodological Considerations for Online Focus Group Discussions

“…Third, conducting focus group discussions online allows for participation across a wide geographic area, providing the potential for greater diversity and/or greater geographic dispersion among participants sampled. Fourth, for “sensitive topics” and/or “hard-to-reach” populations, the anonymity and convenience of an online focus group discussion may allow researchers to access segments or subgroups of the population who may otherwise be unwilling to participate in face-to-face focus groups (Prescott et al, 2016). …”

“…Online focus groups have also been shown to be a better facilitator of participation and lead to fewer socially desirable responses from participants compared with face-to-face discussions, particularly for sensitive issues or topics related to sexual health (Tates et al, 2009). The anonymity of the setting also makes it easier for researchers to recruit socially excluded, marginalized, or stigmatized populations who may be “hard-to-reach,” such as those affected by HIV/AIDS, sexual and gender minority (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning [LGBTQ]) youth and adults, sex workers, and people with criminal records (Grady, 2000; Graffigna & Bosio, 2006; Im & Chee, 2003; Prescott et al, 2016; Seymour, 2001; Strickland et al, 2003). …”

Recruiting Hard-to-Reach Populations for Survey Research: Using Facebook and Instagram Advertisements and In-Person Intercept in LGBT Bars and Nightclubs to Recruit LGBT Young Adults (Preprint)

“…This research provides important contributions to the literature on using novel methods to recruit HTR populations, LGBT young adults in particular. Although previous studies have used social media to recruit members of the LGBT community, such as gay men [33,[38][39], gay and bisexual male youth [30], and transgender women [45], our study demonstrates that social media can be used to recruit large numbers of particularly HTR and underrepresented LGBT subgroup members (eg, lesbian/gay women, bisexual men and women, gender and other sexual minorities).…”

“…Researchers are increasingly turning to innovative strategies for recruiting HTR populations versus traditional methods [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. One strategy that researchers use to recruit young adults involves conducting intercept interviews in social venues (eg, bars, nightclubs) where the target population spends time.…”

“…Social media platforms possess massive quantities of user data that allow for highly specific targeting of ads to HTR populations on multiple features, such as age, gender, location, interests, and relationship preferences (women interested in women, women interested in women and men, men interested in men, men interested in women and men). A growing number of studies have successfully recruited HTR populations via social media, including young adult and adolescent smokers in the United States [29,[31][32], adult ecigarette users [35], adult gay men [33,[38][39], gay and bisexual youth [30], adolescent and young adult women in Australia [37,40], and HIVpositive adults in the United States [34].…”