Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32404050›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Social media as a recruitment platform for a nationwide online survey of COVID-19 knowledge, beliefs, and practices in the United States: methodology and feasibility analysis.

Shahmir H Ali, Joshua Foreman, Ariadna Capasso, Abbey M Jones, Yesim Tozan, Ralph J DiClemente

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed
–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

117 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Perceived Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Oman:Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

57 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

6 authors.

Shahmir H AliDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Global Public Health, New York University, 715 Broadway, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Joshua ForemanDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Global Public Health, New York University, 715 Broadway, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Ariadna CapassoDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Global Public Health, New York University, 715 Broadway, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Abbey M JonesDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, USA.
Yesim TozanGlobal Health Program, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, USA.
Ralph J DiClementeDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Global Public Health, New York University, 715 Broadway, New York, NY, 10003, USA. rjd438@nyu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has evolved into one of the most impactful health crises in modern history, compelling researchers to explore innovative ways to efficiently collect public health data in a timely manner. Social media platforms have been explored as a research recruitment tool in other settings; however, their feasibility for collecting representative survey data during infectious disease epidemics remain unexplored.

objectivesThis study has two aims 1) describe the methodology used to recruit a nationwide sample of adults residing in the United States (U.S.) to participate in a survey on COVID-19 knowledge, beliefs, and practices, and 2) outline the preliminary findings related to recruitment, challenges using social media as a recruitment platform, and strategies used to address these challenges.

methodsAn original web-based survey informed by evidence from past literature and validated scales was developed. A Facebook advertisement campaign was used to disseminate the link to an online Qualtrics survey between March 20-30, 2020. Two supplementary male-only and racial minority- targeted advertisements were created on the sixth and tenth day of recruitment, respectively, to address issues of disproportionate female- and White-oriented gender- and ethnic-skewing observed in the advertisement's reach and response trends.

resultsIn total, 6602 participant responses were recorded with representation from all U.S. 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The advertisements cumulatively reached 236,017 individuals and resulted in 9609 clicks (4.07% reach). Total cost of the advertisement was $906, resulting in costs of $0.09 per click and $0.18 per full response (completed surveys). Implementation of the male-only advertisement improved the cumulative percentage of male respondents from approximately 20 to 40%.

conclusionsThe social media advertisement campaign was an effective and efficient strategy to collect large scale, nationwide data on COVID-19 within a short time period. Although the proportion of men who completed the survey was lower than those who didn't, interventions to increase male responses and enhance representativeness were successful. These findings can inform future research on the use of social media recruitment for the rapid collection of survey data related to rapidly evolving health crises, such as COVID-19.

Indexed as

Coronavirus InfectionsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePandemicsPatient SelectionPneumonia, ViralSocial MediaAdolescentAdultAgedBetacoronavirusCOVID-19FemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedBeliefsCoronavirusCOVID-19FacebookInfectious diseaseKnowledgeMethodologyPracticesSocial mediaSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID32404050
PMCPMC7220591

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.