Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29914861›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018

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.

Jamie Guillory, Kristine F Wiant, Matthew Farrelly, Leah Fiacco, Ishrat Alam, Leah Hoffman, Erik Crankshaw, Janine Delahanty, Tesfa N Alexander

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
29.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 191 citations in OpenAlex.

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

21 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jamie GuilloryRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9765-2299
Kristine F WiantRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3648-5962
Matthew FarrellyRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6035-1596
Leah FiaccoRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7213-7845
Ishrat AlamRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9173-571X
Leah HoffmanUS Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products, Silver Spring, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8153-3866
Erik CrankshawRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2919-5273
Janine DelahantyUS Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products, Silver Spring, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4714-6774
Tesfa N AlexanderBattelle Memorial Institute, Aberdeen, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3473-899X
RTI International · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · USBattelle · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTobacco public education campaigns focus increasingly on hard-to-reach populations at higher risk for smoking, prompting campaign creators and evaluators to develop strategies to reach hard-to-reach populations in virtual and physical spaces where they spend time.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to describe two novel recruitment strategies (in-person intercept interviews in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] social venues and targeted social media ads) and compares characteristics of participants recruited via these strategies for the US Food and Drug Administration's This Free Life campaign evaluation targeting LGBT young adults who smoke cigarettes occasionally.

methodsWe recruited LGBT adults aged 18-24 years in the United States via Facebook and Instagram ads (N=1709, mean age 20.94, SD 1.94) or intercept in LGBT social venues (N=2348, mean age 21.98, SD 1.69) for the baseline evaluation survey. Covariates related to recruitment strategy were age; race or ethnicity; LGBT identity; education; pride event attendance; and alcohol, cigarette, and social media use.

resultsLesbian or gay women (adjusted odds ratio, AOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.54-2.29, P<.001), bisexual men and women (AOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17-1.82, P=.001), gender minorities (AOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.26-2.25, P<.001), and other sexual minorities (AOR 2.48, 95% CI 1.62-3.80, P<.001) were more likely than gay men to be recruited via social media (than intercept). Hispanic (AOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.89, P=.001) and other or multiracial, non-Hispanic participants (AOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54-0.90, P=.006) were less likely than white, non-Hispanic participants to be recruited via social media. As age increased, odds of recruitment via social media decreased (AOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.72-0.80, P<.001). Participants with some college education (AOR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03-1.56, P=.03) were more likely than those with a college degree to be recruited via social media. Participants reporting past 30-day alcohol use were less likely to be recruited via social media (AOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24-0.44, P<.001). Participants who reported past-year pride event attendance were more likely to be recruited via social media (AOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.06-1.64, P=.02), as well as those who used Facebook at least once daily (AOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14-1.80, P=.002). Participants who reported using Instagram at least once daily were less likely to be recruited via social media (AOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.86, P<.001). Social media recruitment was faster (incidence rate ratio, IRR=3.31, 95% CI 3.11-3.52, P<.001) and less expensive (2.2% of combined social media and intercept recruitment cost) but had greater data quality issues-a larger percentage of social media respondents were lost because of duplicate and low-quality responses (374/4446, 8.41%) compared with intercept respondents lost to interviewer misrepresentation (15/4446, 0.34%; P<.001).

conclusionsSocial media combined with intercept provided access to important LGBT subpopulations (eg, gender and other sexual minorities) and a more diverse sample. Social media methods have more data quality issues but are faster and less expensive than intercept. Recruiting hard-to-reach populations via audience-tailored strategies enabled recruitment of one of the largest LGBT young adult samples, suggesting these methods' promise for accessing hard-to-reach populations.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultFemaleHumansInternetMaleResearch DesignSexual and Gender MinoritiesSexual BehaviorSocial MediaSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultpublic healthsexual minoritiessocial mediasurvey methodstobaccotransgender persons

Identifiers

PMID29914861
PMCPMC6028767
OpenAlexW2809562162

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.