Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41052418›Full record

Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2025

Effectiveness and Costs of Participant Recruitment Strategies to a Web-Based Population Cohort: Observational Study.

Hannah Milbourn, Archie Campbell, Fiona Clark, Elly Darrah, Robin Flaig, Liz Kirby, Daniel L McCartney, Isla Mitchell, Sarah Robertson, Anne Richmond and 9 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. 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

19 authors.

Hannah MilbournCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4479-8635
Archie CampbellCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0198-5078
Fiona ClarkCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-8790-0395
Elly DarrahCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-5883-360X
Robin FlaigCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, 5-7 Little France Road, Edinburgh BioQuarter-Gate 3, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, United Kingdom, +44 (0)131 651 7869.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8007-1279
Liz KirbyCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-4900-0541
Daniel L McCartneyCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3242-0360
Isla MitchellCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-4096-4581
Sarah RobertsonCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-5568-1114
Anne RichmondCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9504-510X
Rosie TathamCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-8659-5776
Zhuoni XiaoCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Division of Psychiatry, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2030-6045
Kerim McAteerSpirit Media Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-2619-389X
Caroline HaywardCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9405-9550
Riccardo E MarioniCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4430-4260
Andrew M McIntoshCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Division of Psychiatry, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0198-4588
David J PorteousCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1249-6106
Heather C WhalleyCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, 5-7 Little France Road, Edinburgh BioQuarter-Gate 3, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, United Kingdom, +44 (0)131 651 7869.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4505-8869
Cathie L M SudlowCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, 5-7 Little France Road, Edinburgh BioQuarter-Gate 3, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, United Kingdom, +44 (0)131 651 7869.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7725-7520

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Recruitment to population-based health studies remains challenging, with difficulties meeting target participant numbers, biosample returns, and achieving a representative sample. Few studies provide evaluations of traditional and web-based recruitment methods particularly for studies with broad inclusion criteria and extended recruitment periods. Generation Scotland (GS) is a family-based cohort study that initiated a new wave of recruitment in 2022 using web-based data collection and remote saliva sampling (for genotyping). Here, we provide an overview of recruitment strategies used by GS over the first 18 months of new recruitment, highlighting which proved most effective and cost-efficient in order to inform future research. Objective: This study evaluated recruitment strategies using four main outcomes: (1) absolute recruitment numbers, (2) sociodemographic representativeness, (3) biosample return rate, and (4) cost per participant. Methods: Between May 2022 and December 2023, recruitment was undertaken via snowball recruitment (through friends and family of existing volunteers), invitations to those who participated in a previous survey (CovidLife: the GS COVID-19 impact survey), and Scotland-wide recruitment through social media (including sponsored Meta-advertisements), news media, and TV advertisement. The method of recruitment was self-reported in the baseline questionnaire. We present absolute recruitment numbers and sociodemographic characteristics by recruitment method and evaluate the saliva sample return rate by recruitment strategy using chi-square tests. The overall cost and cost per participant were calculated for each method. Results: In total, 7889 new participants joined the cohort over this period. Recruitment sources by contribution were social media (n=2436, 30.9%), survey responder invitations (n=2049, 26.0%), TV advertising (n=367, 17.3%), snowball (n=891, 11.3%), news media (n=747, 9.5%), and other methods or unknown (n=399, 5.0%). More females signed up than males (5570/7889, 70.5% female). To date, 83.5% (6543/7836) of participants returned their postal saliva sample, which also varied by demographic factors (3485/3851, 90.5% older than 60 years vs 471/662, 71.1% aged 16-34 years). Average cost per participant across all recruitment strategies was £13.52 (US $16.82). Previous survey recontacting was the most cost-effective (£0.37 [US $0.46]), followed by social media (£14.78 [US $18.39]), while TV advertisement recruitment was the most expensive per recruit (£33.67 [US $41.89]). Conclusions: This study highlights both the challenges and the opportunities in large web-based cohort recruitment. Overall, social media advertising has been the most cost-effective and easily sustained strategy for recruitment over the reported recruitment period. We note that different strategies resulted in successful recruitment over varying timescales (eg, consistent sustained recruitment for social media and large spikes for news media and TV advertising), which may be informative for future studies with different requirements of recruitment periods. Limitations include self-reported methods of recruitment and difficulties in evaluating multilayered recruitment. Overall, these data demonstrate the potential cost requirements and effectiveness of different strategies that could be applied to future research studies.

Indexed as

InternetPatient SelectionAdultAgedCohort StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisCOVID-19FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSalivaSARS-CoV-2ScotlandSocial MediaSurveys and Questionnairesadvertisementcohort studiescost-effectivenessFacebookrecruitment methodssocial mediaweb-based study

Identifiers

PMID41052418
PMCPMC12500226

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.