Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36303217›Full record

Trial reportTrials2022

A practical guide to implementing a successful social media recruitment strategy: lessons from the Eczema Monitoring Online trial.

Arabella Baker, Eleanor J Mitchell, Kim S Thomas

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Decentralized Clinical Trials in Early Drug Development-A Framework Proposal.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2024
    Review
  7. Observational
  8. Participant recruitment for paediatric research using social media: A practical 'how-to' guide for researchers.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2023
    Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Arabella BakerCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Research Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. arabella.baker@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0101-4693
Eleanor J MitchellNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Research Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6998-4533
Kim S ThomasCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Research Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7785-7465
University of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipant recruitment into clinical trials remains challenging. The global increase in the number of social media users has accelerated the use of social media as a modality of recruitment, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic when traditional recruitment methods were reduced. However, there is limited evidence on the performance of social media recruitment strategies into eczema clinical trials.

methodsFrom September 2021 to January 2022, we recruited participants with eczema into an online randomised controlled trial using free advertising on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Reddit (unpaid methods), followed by paid Facebook advertisements (paid method). Unpaid methods were used periodically for 63 days, whilst the paid method for 16 days. Interested individuals who clicked on the advertisement link were directed to the study website, where they could sign up to participate. Consenting, randomisation and data collection occurred exclusively online, using a database management web platform. Evaluation of the social media recruitment methods was performed, including the number of expression of interests, enrolment yield, cost, baseline characteristics and retention.

resultsOur multi-platform based social media recruitment strategy resulted in 400 expressions of interests, leading to 296 participants. Unpaid methods accounted for 136 (45.9%) of participants, incurring no financial cost. Paid Facebook adverts reached 154,370 individuals, resulting in 123 (41.6%) trial participants for a total cost of £259.93 (£2.11 per participant) and other recruitment methods resulted in 37 (12.5%) enrolments. Paid advertisements predominantly attracted younger participants below the age of 20, whereas unpaid methods mainly drew in participants between 20-29 years of age. The social media platforms recruited an ethnically diverse participant population. Completion rate of follow-up was slightly higher for the paid method (n = 103, 83.7%) compared with the unpaid methods (n = 111, 81.6%).

conclusionsUnpaid social media posts recruited the most participants; however, it was time consuming for the researcher. Paid Facebook adverts rapidly recruited a large number of participants for a low cost and provided flexibility to target specific audiences. Our findings indicate that social media is an efficient tool that can potentially support recruitment to clinical trials.

trial registrationISRCTN45167024. Registered on 29 June 2021.

Indexed as

COVID-19EczemaSocial MediaAdultAdvertisingHumansPandemicsYoung AdultAtopic dermatitisEczemaFacebookInstagramInternet researchOnline recruitmentRandomised controlled trialSocial media

Identifiers

PMID36303217
PMCPMC9612595
OpenAlexW4307638473

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.