ArticlePloS one2023
How to improve representativeness and cost-effectiveness in samples recruited through meta: A comparison of advertisement tools.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serum Interleukin-6 and Interleukin-10 levels in people living with HIV on short-term and long-term antiretroviral therapy: a comparative cross-sectional study with HIV-negative controls.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Assessing self-selection biases in Facebook-recruited online surveys: Evidence from the COVID-19 Health Behavior Survey.PloS one · 2025Article
- Advertising Online Surveys on Social Media: How Your Advertisements Affect Your Study.Public opinion quarterly · 2025Article
- Can social media encourage diabetes self-screenings? A randomized controlled trial with Indonesian Facebook users.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.