Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28851679›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2017

The Use of Facebook in Recruiting Participants for Health Research Purposes: A Systematic Review.

Christopher Whitaker, Sharon Stevelink, Nicola Fear

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 402 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
402citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

402 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

342 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Christopher Whitaker *Kings Centre for Military Health Research, Department of Psychological Medicine, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1308-4894
Sharon StevelinkKings Centre for Military Health Research, Department of Psychological Medicine, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7655-7986
Nicola FearKings Centre for Military Health Research, Department of Psychological Medicine, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5792-2925

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media is a popular online tool that allows users to communicate and exchange information. It allows digital content such as pictures, videos and websites to be shared, discussed, republished and endorsed by its users, their friends and businesses. Adverts can be posted and promoted to specific target audiences by demographics such as region, age or gender. Recruiting for health research is complex with strict requirement criteria imposed on the participants. Traditional research recruitment relies on flyers, newspaper adverts, radio and television broadcasts, letters, emails, website listings, and word of mouth. These methods are potentially poor at recruiting hard to reach demographics, can be slow and expensive. Recruitment via social media, in particular Facebook, may be faster and cheaper.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the current use and success of Facebook to recruit participants for health research purposes.

methodsA literature review was completed in March 2017 in the English language using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, and a hand search of article references. Papers from the past 12 years were included and number of participants, recruitment period, number of impressions, cost per click or participant, and conversion rate extracted.

resultsA total of 35 studies were identified from the United States (n=22), Australia (n=9), Canada (n=2), Japan (n=1), and Germany (n=1) and appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. All focused on the feasibility of recruitment via Facebook, with some (n=10) also testing interventions, such as smoking cessation and depression reduction. Most recruited young age groups (16-24 years), with the remaining targeting specific demographics, for example, military veterans. Information from the 35 studies was analyzed with median values being 264 recruited participants, a 3-month recruitment period, 3.3 million impressions, cost per click of US $0.51, conversion rate of 4% (range 0.06-29.50), eligibility of 61% (range 17-100), and cost per participant of US $14.41. The studies showed success in penetrating hard to reach populations, finding the results representative of their control or comparison demographic, except for an over representation of young white women.

conclusionsThere is growing evidence to suggest that Facebook is a useful recruitment tool and its use, therefore, should be considered when implementing future health research. When compared with traditional recruitment methods (print, radio, television, and email), benefits include reduced costs, shorter recruitment periods, better representation, and improved participant selection in young and hard to reach demographics. It however, remains limited by Internet access and the over representation of young white women. Future studies should recruit across all ages and explore recruitment via other forms of social media.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionAdolescentAdultHumansInternetMiddle AgedResearchSmoking CessationSocial MediaYoung Adultepidemiologyresearchreviewsocial media

Identifiers

PMID28851679
PMCPMC5594255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.