ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2019
Comparing in person and internet methods to recruit low-SES populations for tobacco control policy research.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recruitment Methods, Inclusion, and Successful Participation in a Longitudinal Clinical Trial Using Ecological Momentary Assessment.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2024Trial
- Engaging Underserved Populations in Health Preference Research: Challenges and Strategies.The patient · 2025Article
- Identifying and Removing Fraudulent Attempts to Enroll in a Human Health Improvement Intervention Trial in Rural Communities.Methods and protocols · 2024Article
- Changes in substance use, recovery, and quality of life during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2024Article
- Fear of contagion, emotional stress and coping strategies used by adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Nigeria.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- Factors Associated With Parental Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Multicenter Pediatric Emergency Department Cross-Sectional Analysis.Annals of emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Direct Outreach in Bars and Clubs to Enroll Cigarette Smokers in Mobile Cessation Services: Exploratory Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Article
- PROmotion of COvid-19 VA(X)ccination in the Emergency Department - PROCOVAXED: Study Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Research square · 2022Article
- The Rapid Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccination in Emergency Departments for Underserved Patients Study.Annals of emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Use of Telephone and Digital Channels to Engage Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Adults in Health Disparities Research Within a Social Service Setting: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Measuring Clients' Satisfaction and Trust in Community Health Workers: Results From a Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tobacco use and the associated consequences are much more prevalent among low-SES populations in the U.S. However, tobacco-based research often does not include these harder-to-reach populations. This paper compares the effectiveness and drawbacks of three methods of recruiting low-SES adult smokers in the Northeast. From a 5-year, [funding blinded] grant about impacts of graphic warning labels on tobacco products, three separate means of recruiting low-SES adult smokers emerged: 1) in person in the field with a mobile lab vehicle, 2) in person in the field with tablet computers, and 3) online via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). We compared each of these methods in terms of the resulting participant demographics and the "pros" and "cons" of each approach including quality control, logistics, cost, and engagement. Field-based methods (with a mobile lab or in person with a tablet) yielded a greater proportion of disadvantaged participants who could be biochemically verified as current smokers-45% of the field-based sample had an annual income of <$10,000 compared to 16% of the MTurk sample; 40-45% of the field-based sample did not complete high school compared to 2.6% of the MTurk sample. MTurk-based recruitment was substantially less expensive to operate (1/14th the cost of field-based methods) was faster, and involved less logistical coordination, though was unable to provide immediate biochemical verification of current smoking status. Both MTurk and field-based methods provide access to low-SES participants-the difference is the proportion and the degree of disadvantage. For research and interventions where either inclusion considerations or external validity with low-SES populations is critical, especially the most disadvantaged, our research supports the use of field-based methods. It also highlights the importance of adequate funding and time to enable the recruitment and participation of these harder-to-reach populations.
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.