Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41289559›Full record

ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2025

Enhancing Recruitment of Adolescents Aged 16-18 Years in a Web-Based Peer Network Study Through Financial Reimbursements: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Sarah Eddy, Rachel Sacks-Davis, Michelle Raggatt, Cassandra Wright, Paul Dietze, Margaret Hellard, Jane Hocking, Megan S C Lim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Sarah EddyBurnet Institute, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, 3004, Australia, 61 0385062403.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6690-1918
Rachel Sacks-DavisBurnet Institute, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, 3004, Australia, 61 0385062403.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0860-2762
Michelle RaggattBurnet Institute, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, 3004, Australia, 61 0385062403.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3186-8959
Cassandra WrightBurnet Institute, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, 3004, Australia, 61 0385062403.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9751-4005
Paul DietzeBurnet Institute, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, 3004, Australia, 61 0385062403.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7871-6234
Margaret HellardBurnet Institute, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, 3004, Australia, 61 0385062403.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5055-3266
Jane HockingSchool of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9329-8501
Megan S C LimBurnet Institute, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, 3004, Australia, 61 0385062403.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3136-6761

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Peers are known to influence the health behaviors and attitudes of adolescents, yet recruitment of these networks is challenging. Previous studies have used web-based respondent-driven sampling methods to recruit this population, yet none have experimentally investigated the impact of financial reimbursements. Objective: This study aimed to (1) compare the effectiveness of two financial reimbursement strategies for recruiting adolescents and their peer networks and (2) explore factors associated with successfully recruiting peers. Methods: A parallel-design randomized controlled trial was conducted in which participants (seeds) were randomly allocated to a fixed cash reimbursement (control) or scaled reimbursement (experimental) group as a strategy to be recruited into a web-based peer network study. Seeds aged 16 to 18 years were recruited through social media advertisements and an online student panel. They completed a web-based survey, which assessed eligibility and included questions about their friends (peers). Allocation occurred through a survey platform using a simple randomization method. In the fixed group, all participants in a peer network received AUD $5 (US $3.29); in the scaled group, all participants in a peer network received an additional AUD $5 (US $3.29) per peer who successfully completed the survey (up to AUD $30 each [US $19.72]). Participants and researchers were not blinded to intervention groups. The primary outcome was recruitment of peers to complete the web-based survey (proportion of nominated peers). The number of peers recruited was a secondary outcome. In secondary analyses, we identified peer-, relationship-, and seed-level variables associated with successfully recruiting peers. Results: Of 463 seeds allocated to an intervention (scaled n=221 and fixed n=242), 319 (68.9%) had complete data for analysis (scaled n=157, 71% and fixed n=162, 67%). A total of 11.9% of seeds successfully referred peers (18.5% scaled group and 5.6% fixed group). Those in the scaled reimbursement intervention were 3.80 times more likely to successfully recruit their peers than those in the fixed reimbursement intervention (proportion ratio 3.80, 95% CI 1.78-8.09). Similarly, the average number of peers recruited differed by 0.19 (95% CI 0.11-0.28) per seed between the scaled and fixed intervention groups. Peer recruitment success was similar regardless of the gender, age, education level, and network size of seeds or the gender, age, and closeness of peers. Seeds recruited through social media were more likely to successfully recruit their nominated peers than those recruited through a research panel (proportion ratio 2.20, 95% CI 1.06-4.55). Conclusions: Scaled reimbursements resulted in significantly greater recruitment of peers than fixed reimbursements; however, the total number of peers recruited was low. Greater-value incentives and stronger initial recruitment through social media may be needed to recruit large numbers of friend networks.

Indexed as

adolescentfinancial reimbursementincentivepeerpeer networksocial networkweb-based respondent-driven samplingyoung person

Identifiers

PMID41289559
PMCPMC12646555

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.