ArticleContemporary clinical trials2025
Recruiting sexual minority youth for a drug abuse prevention trial: Comparing Instagram and Facebook.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2025. 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.
- A Comparison of Participant Demographics Across Co-Designed Recruitment Methods to Two Student Mental Health Trials: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite youth's shift from Facebook to Instagram, the literature on how to use Instagram to recruit youth for clinical trials is scant. This paper reports procedures and comparative metrics on the use of Facebook and Instagram to recruit a nationwide sample (N = 1216) of LGBQ youth, aged 15 and 16 years, for an online drug abuse prevention trial.
methodsOur recruitment campaign used ads on Facebook and promoted posts on Instagram. Ads and posts shared common images, headlines, and captions. Ads and posts directed youth to a study recruitment website for informed consent and enrollment procedures.
resultsOur campaign ran for 48 non-consecutive days, yielded N = 1216 participants, had a total cost of $25,400.31, and an average cost per participant of $20.89. Facebook ads and Instagram promoted posts ran for a similar number of days. However, compared to Instagram, Facebook ads cost more than twice as much (115 %), had 51 % fewer clicks, and had an average cost-per-click that was 338 % higher. Furthermore, despite being shown to users more than 4 times as often and garnering more than twice as many unique views, Facebook ads had a click-through-rate that was 90 % lower than Instagram promoted posts.
conclusionInstagram promoted posts outperformed ads on Facebook by driving more potential participants to the study recruitment website and for less money.
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.