Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36753470›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

How to improve representativeness and cost-effectiveness in samples recruited through meta: A comparison of advertisement tools.

Anja Neundorf, Aykut Öztürk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Anja NeundorfSchool of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1294-6771
Aykut ÖztürkSchool of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4877-4617

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of paid advertisements on social media, in particular Meta platforms, to create samples for online survey research is becoming increasingly common. In addition to researchers working on hard-to-reach populations, Meta's promise of unmediated, quick, and cheap access to a large pool of survey takers across the world is appealing also for researchers who want to create diverse samples of national populations for cheaper prices. Yet the design of Meta's advertisement optimization algorithm complicates the use of Meta advertisements for this purpose, as it generates a trade-off between cost-effectiveness and sample representativeness. In this paper, we rely on original online surveys conducted in the United Kingdom, Turkey, Spain, and the Czech Republic to explore how two primary tools determining the audience of Meta advertisements, i.e., campaign objectives and demographic targeting, affect the recruitment process, response quality, and sample characteristics. In addition to documenting the trade-offs between the cost and representativeness in Meta samples, our paper also shows that researchers can create high-quality, cost-efficient, and diverse samples if they use the right combination of Meta advertisement tools.

Indexed as

AdvertisingSocial MediaAlgorithmsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36753470
PMCPMC9907806

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.