Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35531089›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Strategies for improving recruitment of pregnant women to clinical research: An evaluation of social media versus traditional offline methods.

Kelsey M Cochrane, Jennifer A Hutcheon, Crystal D Karakochuk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. A Whole New World: Overcoming Methodological Challenges in the Post-Pandemic Recruitment of Pregnant Women at Risk of STIs.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Facebook recruitment: understanding research relations Prior to data collection.International journal of social research methodology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Kelsey M CochraneDepartment of Food, Nutrition and Health, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5628-2850
Jennifer A HutcheonBC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Crystal D KarakochukDepartment of Food, Nutrition and Health, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the recruitment of pregnant women for a clinical trial in Vancouver, Canada, via social media versus offline methods and to explore optimization of social media campaigns. Methods: Facebook was used to run nine social media campaigns (15 weeks total, CA$675). Offline methods were used concurrently over 64 weeks (printing costs: CA$300). The cost, rate of recruitment and conversion rate in each group was calculated. Performance metrics of social media campaigns (reach, impressions, clicks, inquiries, enrolments) were recorded. Linear regression was used to explore the association between metrics and dollars spent per campaign. Results: In total, n = 481 inquiries were received: n = 51 (11%) via offline methods and n = 430 (89%) via social media. Enrolees (n = 60 total) included n = 24 (40%) and n = 36 (60%) via offline and social media methods, respectively. Gestational weeks upon inquiry (n = 251; mean ± SD) were not different among groups (offline: 13.3 ± 4.7; social media: 13.2 ± 5.6). Direct cost per enrolee was CA$13 and CA$19 via offline and social media methods, respectively (however, this does not include cost of labour). The rate of recruitment was approximately six times faster via social media. However, the conversion rate was higher via offline methods than social media (47% vs. 8%). The amount spent per campaign was significantly associated with improved clicks and inquiries, but not enrolments. Conclusions: Social media was more efficient and effective than offline methods. We gained numerous insights for optimization of social media campaigns (dollars spent, attribution setting, photo testing, automatic optimization) to increase clicks and inquiries, however, this does not necessarily increase enrolments, which was more dependent on study-specific factors (e.g. time of year, study design).

Indexed as

clinical trialsFacebookPregnancysocial mediawomens health

Identifiers

PMID35531089
PMCPMC9069596

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.