The Effectiveness Of Social Media (Facebook) Compared With More Traditional Advertising Methods for Recruiting Eligible Participants To Health Research Studies: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

Abstract

BackgroundRecruiting participants for research studies can be difficult and costly. The popularity of social media platforms (eg, Facebook) has seen corresponding growth in the number of researchers turning to social networking sites and their embedded advertising frameworks to locate eligible participants for studies. Compared with traditional recruitment strategies such as print media, social media advertising has been shown to be favorable in terms of its reach (especially with hard-to-reach populations), cost effectiveness, and usability. However, to date, no studies have examined how participants recruited via social media progress through a study compared with those recruited using more traditional recruitment strategies.Objectives(1) Examine whether visiting the study website prior to being contacted by researchers creates self-screened participants who are more likely to progress through all study phases (eligible, enrolled, completed); (2) compare conversion percentages and cost effectiveness of each recruitment method at each study phase; and, (3) compare demographic and smoking characteristics of participants recruited through each strategy to determine if they attract similar samples.MethodsParticipants recruited to a smoking cessation clinical trial were grouped by how they had become aware of the study: via social media (Facebook) or traditional media (eg, newspaper, flyers, radio, word of mouth). Groups were compared based on throughput data (conversion percentages and cost) as well as demographic and smoking characteristics.ResultsVisiting the study website did not result in individuals who were more likely to be eligible for (P=.24), enroll in (P=.20), or complete (P=.25) the study. While using social media was more cost effective than traditional methods when we examined earlier endpoints of the recruitment process (cost to obtain a screened respondent: AUD $22.73 vs $29.35; cost to obtain an eligible respondent: $37.56 vs $44.77), it was less cost effective in later endpoints (cost per enrolled participant: $56.34 vs $52.33; cost per completed participant: $103.66 vs $80.43). Participants recruited via social media were more likely to be younger (P=.001) and less confident in their quit attempts (P=.004) compared to those recruited via traditional methods.ConclusionsOur study suggests that while social media advertising may be effective in generating interest from potential participants, this strategy’s ability to attract conscientious recruits is more questionable. Researchers considering using online resources (eg, social media advertising, matrix codes) should consider including prescreening questions to promote conversion percentages. Ultimately, researchers seeking to maximize their recruitment budget should consider using a combination of advertising strategies.Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN 12614000329662; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=365947l (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6jc6zXWZI)

The Use of Social Media in Recruitment for Medical Research Studies: A Scoping Review

“…The percentage of participants recruited via social media ranged from 0% (0/12) to 98.29% (1610/1638) [14-42] as shown in Table 1, and the median percentage was 32%. The article by Head et al [35] has 2 studies and has been counted as 2 articles for the purpose of Figure 1.…”

“…In further sections of this paper, the article by Head et al [35] is counted as a single article or 2 articles, according to whether the conclusions from the 2 studies pertinent to the outcomes of this paper are the same or different. Out of 30 studies, 12 studies (40%) reported higher rates of recruitment through social media as compared with any of the other methods used [14-17,26,28,31,32,35, 36,41,42] and 15 studies (50%) reported recruitment via social media to be less effective than at least one other method used [18-21,23-25, 27,33-35,37-40]. Heffner et al [20] and Rabin et al [24] found social media to be the least effective method out of multiple (>2) recruitment methods used.…”

Strategies to enhance recruitment methods in phantom limb pain clinical trials

“…In this regard, print advertisements, such as newspaper and magazine ads, have become a primary option for many research studies 13 . This is an excellent strategy to reach a broader population, and have shown promising results for diseases that have a high prevalence.…”

“…It is only when the study generates topics of “human interest” that social media is effective; therefore a mass campaign of online dissemination could be effective for enrollment only when captivating and media-appropriated materials are created in regards of the research topic. However, in order to achieve efficient results, it requires a large dedication of time by the research staff 13,28 .…”

Using Facebook for Large-Scale Online Randomized Clinical Trial Recruitment: Effective Advertising Strategies (Preprint)

“…Thornton and colleagues [6] reviewed 110 unique studies that used Facebook to recruit participants for health, medical, or psychosocial research and found that the participants were generally similar to those recruited via traditional methods. Frandsen, Thow, and Ferguson [7] showed that participants recruited to their smoking cessation study via social as compared to traditional media were somewhat younger (mean age 39.3 years vs. 44.9 years) but otherwise demographically similar (gender, education, and income). Those recruited via traditional media were more likely to follow the study protocol and "complete" the study.…”