Effectiveness and Costs of Participant Recruitment Strategies to a Web-Based Population Cohort: Observational Study.

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Hannah Milbourn, Archie Campbell, Fiona Clark, Elly Darrah, Robin Flaig, Liz Kirby, Daniel L McCartney, Isla Mitchell, Sarah Robertson, Anne Richmond, Rosie Tatham, Zhuoni Xiao, Kerim McAteer, Caroline Hayward, Riccardo E Marioni, Andrew M McIntosh, David J Porteous, Heather C Whalley, Cathie L M Sudlow
{"title":"Effectiveness and Costs of Participant Recruitment Strategies to a Web-Based Population Cohort: Observational Study.","authors":"Hannah Milbourn, Archie Campbell, Fiona Clark, Elly Darrah, Robin Flaig, Liz Kirby, Daniel L McCartney, Isla Mitchell, Sarah Robertson, Anne Richmond, Rosie Tatham, Zhuoni Xiao, Kerim McAteer, Caroline Hayward, Riccardo E Marioni, Andrew M McIntosh, David J Porteous, Heather C Whalley, Cathie L M Sudlow","doi":"10.2196/75116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recruitment to population-based health studies remains challenging, with difficulties meeting target participant numbers, biosample returns, and achieving a representative sample. Few studies provide evaluations of traditional and web-based recruitment methods particularly for studies with broad inclusion criteria and extended recruitment periods. Generation Scotland (GS) is a family-based cohort study that initiated a new wave of recruitment in 2022 using web-based data collection and remote saliva sampling (for genotyping). Here, we provide an overview of recruitment strategies used by GS over the first 18 months of new recruitment, highlighting which proved most effective and cost-efficient in order to inform future research.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study evaluated recruitment strategies using four main outcomes: (1) absolute recruitment numbers, (2) sociodemographic representativeness, (3) biosample return rate, and (4) cost per participant.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between May 2022 and December 2023, recruitment was undertaken via snowball recruitment (through friends and family of existing volunteers), invitations to those who participated in a previous survey (CovidLife: the GS COVID-19 impact survey), and Scotland-wide recruitment through social media (including sponsored Meta-advertisements), news media, and TV advertisement. The method of recruitment was self-reported in the baseline questionnaire. We present absolute recruitment numbers and sociodemographic characteristics by recruitment method and evaluate the saliva sample return rate by recruitment strategy using chi-square tests. The overall cost and cost per participant were calculated for each method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 7889 new participants joined the cohort over this period. Recruitment sources by contribution were social media (n=2436, 30.9%), survey responder invitations (n=2049, 26.0%), TV advertising (n=367, 17.3%), snowball (n=891, 11.3%), news media (n=747, 9.5%), and other methods or unknown (n=399, 5.0%). More females signed up than males (5570/7889, 70.5% female). To date, 83.5% (6543/7836) of participants returned their postal saliva sample, which also varied by demographic factors (3485/3851, 90.5% older than 60 years vs 471/662, 71.1% aged 16-34 years). Average cost per participant across all recruitment strategies was £13.52 (US $16.82). Previous survey recontacting was the most cost-effective (£0.37 [US $0.46]), followed by social media (£14.78 [US $18.39]), while TV advertisement recruitment was the most expensive per recruit (£33.67 [US $41.89]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlights both the challenges and the opportunities in large web-based cohort recruitment. Overall, social media advertising has been the most cost-effective and easily sustained strategy for recruitment over the reported recruitment period. We note that different strategies resulted in successful recruitment over varying timescales (eg, consistent sustained recruitment for social media and large spikes for news media and TV advertising), which may be informative for future studies with different requirements of recruitment periods. Limitations include self-reported methods of recruitment and difficulties in evaluating multilayered recruitment. Overall, these data demonstrate the potential cost requirements and effectiveness of different strategies that could be applied to future research studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":16337,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","volume":"27 ","pages":"e75116"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12500226/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/75116","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recruitment to population-based health studies remains challenging, with difficulties meeting target participant numbers, biosample returns, and achieving a representative sample. Few studies provide evaluations of traditional and web-based recruitment methods particularly for studies with broad inclusion criteria and extended recruitment periods. Generation Scotland (GS) is a family-based cohort study that initiated a new wave of recruitment in 2022 using web-based data collection and remote saliva sampling (for genotyping). Here, we provide an overview of recruitment strategies used by GS over the first 18 months of new recruitment, highlighting which proved most effective and cost-efficient in order to inform future research.

Objective: This study evaluated recruitment strategies using four main outcomes: (1) absolute recruitment numbers, (2) sociodemographic representativeness, (3) biosample return rate, and (4) cost per participant.

Methods: Between May 2022 and December 2023, recruitment was undertaken via snowball recruitment (through friends and family of existing volunteers), invitations to those who participated in a previous survey (CovidLife: the GS COVID-19 impact survey), and Scotland-wide recruitment through social media (including sponsored Meta-advertisements), news media, and TV advertisement. The method of recruitment was self-reported in the baseline questionnaire. We present absolute recruitment numbers and sociodemographic characteristics by recruitment method and evaluate the saliva sample return rate by recruitment strategy using chi-square tests. The overall cost and cost per participant were calculated for each method.

Results: In total, 7889 new participants joined the cohort over this period. Recruitment sources by contribution were social media (n=2436, 30.9%), survey responder invitations (n=2049, 26.0%), TV advertising (n=367, 17.3%), snowball (n=891, 11.3%), news media (n=747, 9.5%), and other methods or unknown (n=399, 5.0%). More females signed up than males (5570/7889, 70.5% female). To date, 83.5% (6543/7836) of participants returned their postal saliva sample, which also varied by demographic factors (3485/3851, 90.5% older than 60 years vs 471/662, 71.1% aged 16-34 years). Average cost per participant across all recruitment strategies was £13.52 (US $16.82). Previous survey recontacting was the most cost-effective (£0.37 [US $0.46]), followed by social media (£14.78 [US $18.39]), while TV advertisement recruitment was the most expensive per recruit (£33.67 [US $41.89]).

Conclusions: This study highlights both the challenges and the opportunities in large web-based cohort recruitment. Overall, social media advertising has been the most cost-effective and easily sustained strategy for recruitment over the reported recruitment period. We note that different strategies resulted in successful recruitment over varying timescales (eg, consistent sustained recruitment for social media and large spikes for news media and TV advertising), which may be informative for future studies with different requirements of recruitment periods. Limitations include self-reported methods of recruitment and difficulties in evaluating multilayered recruitment. Overall, these data demonstrate the potential cost requirements and effectiveness of different strategies that could be applied to future research studies.

网络人群队列参与者招募策略的有效性和成本:观察性研究。
背景:以人群为基础的健康研究的招募仍然具有挑战性,在满足目标参与者数量、生物样本返回和实现代表性样本方面存在困难。很少有研究对传统的和基于网络的招聘方法进行评估,特别是对那些纳入标准广泛、招聘周期延长的研究。“苏格兰一代”(GS)是一项基于家庭的队列研究,通过基于网络的数据收集和远程唾液采样(用于基因分型),在2022年启动了新一轮招聘。在这里,我们概述了GS在新招聘的前18个月里使用的招聘策略,重点介绍了最有效和最具成本效益的策略,以便为未来的研究提供信息。目的:本研究使用四个主要结果评估招聘策略:(1)绝对招聘人数,(2)社会人口代表性,(3)生物样本回收率,(4)每位参与者的成本。方法:在2022年5月至2023年12月期间,通过滚雪球招募(通过现有志愿者的朋友和家人)、邀请参加过之前调查的人(covid - life: GS COVID-19影响调查)以及通过社交媒体(包括赞助的元广告)、新闻媒体和电视广告在苏格兰范围内招募进行招募。招募方法在基线问卷中自我报告。我们通过招募方法给出绝对招募人数和社会人口学特征,并通过招募策略使用卡方检验评估唾液样本回收率。计算了每种方法的总成本和每位参与者的成本。结果:在此期间,共有7889名新参与者加入了队列。贡献性招聘来源为社交媒体(n=2436, 30.9%)、邀请受访者(n=2049, 26.0%)、电视广告(n=367, 17.3%)、雪球(n=891, 11.3%)、新闻媒体(n=747, 9.5%)以及其他方式或未知(n=399, 5.0%)。女性多于男性(5570/7889,70.5%为女性)。到目前为止,83.5%(6543/7836)的参与者返回了他们的邮政唾液样本,这也因人口统计学因素而异(3485/3851,60岁以上的90.5% vs 471/ 662,16 -34岁的71.1%)。在所有招聘策略中,每位参与者的平均成本为13.52英镑(16.82美元)。以前的调查再联系是最具成本效益的(0.37英镑[0.46美元]),其次是社交媒体(14.78英镑[18.39美元]),而电视广告招聘是最昂贵的(33.67英镑[41.89美元])。结论:本研究强调了大型网络队列招聘的挑战和机遇。总体而言,在报告的招聘期间,社交媒体广告一直是最具成本效益和最容易持续的招聘策略。我们注意到,在不同的时间尺度上,不同的策略导致了成功的招聘(例如,社交媒体的持续招聘和新闻媒体和电视广告的大高峰),这可能为未来的不同招聘周期要求的研究提供信息。局限性包括自我报告的招聘方法和评估多层招聘的困难。总的来说,这些数据表明了潜在的成本需求和不同策略的有效性,可以应用于未来的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
5.40%
发文量
654
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is a highly respected publication in the field of health informatics and health services. With a founding date in 1999, JMIR has been a pioneer in the field for over two decades. As a leader in the industry, the journal focuses on digital health, data science, health informatics, and emerging technologies for health, medicine, and biomedical research. It is recognized as a top publication in these disciplines, ranking in the first quartile (Q1) by Impact Factor. Notably, JMIR holds the prestigious position of being ranked #1 on Google Scholar within the "Medical Informatics" discipline.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信