ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2020
Creating a centralized social media recruitment service for research teams at the University of Michigan.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital and community-engaged approaches to improve research participant recruitment - Advice from forty convened experts.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Successful social media recruitment requires specific expertise and constant upkeep, placing an inordinate burden on study teams. Over half of the study teams at the University of Michigan (U-M) surveyed about recruitment assistance needs indicated that they wanted to use social media as a recruitment strategy, but lacked the expertise to do so. We thus built a service to centralize social media recruitment across the university. This involved assembling the right expertise, creating a centralized social media profile, creating linkages to other digital recruitment platforms, building the financial structure, and operationalizing the service. So far, we have helped 94 study teams launch social media campaigns on Facebook and Instagram. These campaigns resulted in 1,653,675 users being reached, of which 20,546 users actively showed interest in participating in the corresponding studies. We followed 18 studies further, who reported a total of 345 social media participants as being enrolled, resulting in an average cost-per-contact (CPC) of $8.72 and an average cost-per-enrollee (CPE) of $55.21. The combination of communication expertise, streamlined administrative processes, and linkages to a centralized research participation registry has allowed us to help a large number of study teams seamlessly engage broad and diverse 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.