ArticleDigital health
Strategies for improving recruitment of pregnant women to clinical research: An evaluation of social media versus traditional offline methods.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bravery of giving birth in the homeland: pregnant women's and new mothers' decisions on staying in Ukraine during the war.BMC public health · 2026Observational
- Feasibility and acceptability of an adapted community-based cardiovascular disease prevention program: a pilot study of the StrongPeople strong hearts intervention for women living in urban settings.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in Recruiting a Very Large Sample of Pregnant Individuals: Secondary Analysis of an Online Nationwide Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2025Article
- Analysis of 4616 clinical trial initial submissions received by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency between February 2019 and October 2023.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Recruitment rate comparison between a virtual tele-research cohort and a traditional centre-based cohort in idiopathic inflammatory myopathy.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Observational
- Facebook recruitment: understanding research relations Prior to data collection.International journal of social research methodology · 2025Article
- A scoping review of health promotion interventions delivered via social media to women of reproductive age.Public health nutrition · 2023Article
- Ecological momentary assessment of heavy episodic drinking in the early postpartum period: A feasibility study.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2023Article
- Promoting healthy eating in early pregnancy in individuals at risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: does it improve glucose homeostasis? A study protocol for a randomized control trial.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.