Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33625368›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

Comparison of Facebook, Google Ads, and Reddit for the Recruitment of People Who Considered but Did Not Obtain Abortion Care in the United States: Cross-sectional Survey.

Heidi Moseson, Alexandra Wollum, Jane W Seymour, Carmela Zuniga, Terri-Ann Thompson, Caitlin Gerdts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Exploring social media influences on vaccine decision-making in parents: a netnography.Therapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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.

Heidi MosesonIbis Reproductive Health, Oakland, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2488-2429
Alexandra WollumIbis Reproductive Health, Oakland, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5737-0112
Jane W SeymourIbis Reproductive Health, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8410-7483
Carmela ZunigaIbis Reproductive Health, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6016-1568
Terri-Ann ThompsonIbis Reproductive Health, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3570-6500
Caitlin GerdtsIbis Reproductive Health, Oakland, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2488-5072

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the United States, abortion access is restricted by numerous logistical, financial, social, and policy barriers. Most studies on abortion-seeking experiences in the United States have recruited participants from abortion clinics. However, clinic-based recruitment strategies fail to capture the experiences of people who consider an abortion but do not make it to an abortion clinic. Research indicates that many people search for abortion information on the web; however, web-based recruitment remains underutilized in abortion research.

objectiveThis study aims to establish the feasibility of using Facebook, Google Ads, and Reddit as recruitment platforms for a study on abortion-seeking experiences in the United States.

methodsFrom August to September 2018, we posted recruitment advertisements for a survey about abortion-seeking experiences through Facebook, Google Ads, and Reddit. Eligible participants were US residents aged 15-49 years who had been pregnant in the past 5 years and had considered abortion for a pregnancy in this period but did not abort. For each platform, we recorded staff time to develop advertisements and manage recruitment, as well as costs related to advertisement buys and social marketing firm support. We summarized the number of views and clicks for each advertisement where possible, and we calculated metrics related to cost per recruited participant and recruitment rate by week for each platform. We assessed differences across platforms using the chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

resultsOverall, study advertisements received 77,464 views in the 1-month period (from Facebook and Google; information not available for Reddit) and 2808 study page views. After clicking on the advertisements, there were 1254 initiations of the eligibility screening survey, which resulted in 98 eligible survey participants (75 recruited from Facebook, 14 from Google Ads, and 9 from Reddit). The cost for each eligible participant in each platform was US $49.48 for Facebook, US $265.93 for Google Ads, and US $182.78 for Reddit. A total of 84% (66/79) of those who screened eligible from Facebook completed the short survey compared with 73% (8/11) of those who screened eligible from Reddit and 13% (7/53) of those who screened eligible from Google Ads.

conclusionsThese results suggest that Facebook advertisements may be the most time- and cost-effective strategy to recruit people who considered but did not obtain an abortion in the United States. Adapting and implementing Facebook-based recruitment strategies for research on abortion access could facilitate a more complete understanding of the barriers to abortion care in the United States.

Indexed as

abortion, inducedabortion seekersabortion surveysbias, selectionpregnancy, unplannedreproductive healthresearch subject recruitmentsocial mediasocial stigma

Identifiers

PMID33625368
PMCPMC7946578

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.