Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35925655›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2022

Social Media Use for Research Participant Recruitment: Integrative Literature Review.

Elizabeth Mirekuwaa Darko, Manal Kleib, Joanne Olson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing 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

98 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Long COVID Optimal Health Programme to Enhance Mental and Physical Health: A Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

38 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

3 authors.

Elizabeth Mirekuwaa Darko *College of Health Sciences, Faculty of Nursing, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1394-3641
Manal Kleib *College of Health Sciences, Faculty of Nursing, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4680-6750
Joanne Olson *College of Health Sciences, Faculty of Nursing, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8702-3605

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media tools have provided health researchers with the opportunity to engage with communities and groups in a nonconventional manner to recruit participants for health research. Using social media to advertise research opportunities and recruit participants facilitates accessibility to participants from broad geographical areas and diverse populations. However, little guidance is provided by ethics review boards for researchers to effectively use this recruitment method in their research.

objectiveThis study sought to explore the literature on the use of social media for participant recruitment for research studies and identify the best practices for recruiting participants using this method.

methodsAn integrative review approach was used to synthesize the literature. A total of 5 health sciences databases, namely, EMBASE (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid and EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus (Elsevier), and CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), were searched using predefined keywords and inclusion and exclusion criteria. The initial search was conducted in October 2020 and was updated in February 2022. Descriptive and content analyses were applied to synthesize the results, and the findings are presented in a narrative and tabular format.

resultsA total of 96 records were included in this review, 83 (86%) from the initial search and 13 (14%) from the updated search. The publication year ranged between 2011 and 2022, with most publications (63/96, 66%) being from the United States. Regarding recruitment strategy, 45% (43/96) of the studies exclusively used social media, whereas 51% (49/96) used social media in conjunction with other strategies. The remaining 4% (4/96) provided guidelines and recommendations for social media recruitment. Notably, 38% (36/96) of these studies involved hard-to-reach populations. The findings also revealed that the use of social media is a cost-effective and efficient strategy for recruiting research participants. Despite the expanded use across different populations, there is limited participation of older adults in social media recruitment.

conclusionsThis review provides important insights into the current use of social media for health research participant recruitment. Ethics boards and research support services in academic institutions are encouraged to explicitly provide researchers with guidelines on the use of social media for health research participant recruitment. A preliminary guideline prepared based on the findings of this review is proposed to spark further development in this area.

Indexed as

Social MediaAgedHumansPatient SelectionResearch DesignResearch Personneladvertisementmobile phonerecruitmentresearch participantssocial media

Identifiers

PMID35925655
PMCPMC9389385

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.