ArticleDigital health
Comparison of digital recruitment strategies for Alzheimer's disease patients.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Clinical trials studying Alzheimer's Disease (AD) face the challenge of recruiting participants with significant barriers to entering research studies. The objective of this study is to compare digital recruitment strategies' ability to recruit older adults with cognitive impairment (CI). Methods: Older adults with CI were recruited for a clinical trial studying vestibular therapy in reducing falls and improving balance and cognition in older adults with CI. Potential participants were recruited via two different digital recruitment methods, a direct messaging campaign using established patient records and a social media campaign. Potential participants then filled out surveys to determine eligibility for the study. Results: The direct messaging campaign contacted 3060 potential participants and the social media campaign resulted in 8265 instances of unique engagement. Of the number of people reached, the direct messaging campaign had a higher percentage of people who submitted the survey compared to the social media campaign (8.3% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in age, race, ethnicity, education, household income, and insurance status between the recruitment groups (p > 0.05). Direct messaging recruitment proved more cost-effective at $21.74 per eligible participant compared to the social media campaign at $859.58 per eligible participant. Conclusion: This study found that direct messaging recruitment using established patient records was more cost-effective compared to social media recruitment for this clinical trial. In this sample size, similar demographics were reached by both recruitment methods. Future studies should continue to explore the use of social media and alternative methods to recruit representative participant populations for ongoing AD research.
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.