ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019
How different online recruitment methods impact on recruitment rates for the web-based coortesnaweb project: a randomised trial.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Effectiveness and Costs of Participant Recruitment Strategies to a Web-Based Population Cohort: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- Improving the reporting on health equity in observational research (STROBE-Equity): extension checklist and elaboration.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Challenging the Continued Usefulness of Social Media Recruitment for Surveys of Hidden Populations of People Who Use Opioids.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Who Smoke and Want to Quit-A Cohort Profile From the Koori Quit Pack study.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Article
- Koori Quit Pack: A Feasibility Study of a Multi-Component Mailout Smoking Cessation Support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: "I Would Recommend it to Anybody. It's Just so Much Easier."Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Article
- Ecological momentary assessments for patients with hereditary angioedema: a feasibility and acceptability controlled study.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Recruitment in Appalachian, Rural and Older Adult Populations in an Artificial Intelligence World: Study Using Human-Mediated Follow-Up.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Article
- The Together for Health - Virginia Research Program: A Multi-Modal Approach for Population Health Assessment.Preventive oncology & epidemiology · 2024Article
- Agreement between measured weight, height and BMI and Web-based self-reported data in participants of the 1993 Pelotas Birth Cohort, Brazil: a cross-sectional validation study.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2023Article
- Social Media Use for Research Participant Recruitment: Integrative Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Review
- New Methodologies for Conducting Maternal, Infant, and Child Nutrition Research in the Era of COVID-19.Nutrients · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe number of web-based E-epidemiologic studies using online recruitment methods is increasing. However, the optimal online recruitment method in terms of maximizing recruitment rates is still unknown. Our aim was to compare the recruitment rates of three online recruitment methods and to describe how these rates differ according to individual's socioeconomic and demographic factors.
methodsA total of 2394 members of the 1993 Pelotas birth cohort that provided an e-mail address, a Facebook name, and a WhatsApp number during a face-to-face follow-up were randomly allocated to be recruited by e-mail, Facebook or WhatsApp (798 individuals per method). This was a parallel randomised trial applying a block randomisation (block size = 3). Between January and February 2018, we sent messages inviting them to register into the web-based coortesnaweb platform. Recruitment rates were calculated for each method, and stratified according to the individual's socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. We also analysed absolute and relative inequalities on recruitment according to schooling and socioeconomic position.
resultsOut of the 2394 individuals analysed, 642 registered into the platform. The overall recruitment rate was 26.8%. Recruitment rates for women were almost 10 percentage points higher compared to men. Facebook was the most effective recruitment method, as 30.6% of those invited through the social network were recruited. Recruitment rates of e-mail and WhatsApp were similar (recruitment rate = 24.9%). E-mail and Facebook were the most effective recruitment methods to invite highly educated and wealthier individuals. However, sending e-mails to recruit individuals also reflected in the highest inequalities according to schooling and socioeconomic position. In contrast, the lowest inequalities according to socioeconomic position were observed using Facebook.
conclusionsFacebook was the most effective online recruitment method, also achieving the most equitable sample in terms of schooling and socioeconomic position. The effectiveness of online recruitment methods depends on the characteristics of the sample. It is important to know the profile of the target sample in order to decide which online recruitment method to use.
trial registrationBrazilian Registry of Clinical Trials, identifier: RBR-3dv7gc , retrospectively registered in 10 April 2018.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.