Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42170224›Full record

ArticlemHealth2026

A cross-sectional analysis of low-cost non-cancer registry recruitment sources for a hybrid type 2 trial evaluating a digital intervention for melanoma survivors.

Alexis Schaefer, Sharon L Manne, Carolyn J Heckman, Sara Frederick, Justin Solleder, Shou-En Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mHealth, 2026. 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

6 authors.

Alexis SchaeferRutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Sharon L ManneRutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Carolyn J HeckmanRutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Sara FrederickRutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Justin SollederRutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Shou-En LuDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Traditionally, cancer survivorship behavioral intervention research has recruited from cancer registries, which can be costly and time intensive. Over the last decade, the advent of social media recruitment, hospital electronic medical record portals, and large provider networks has offered the possibility of non-paid recruitment sources to recruit cancer survivors cost-effectively. In this study, we used three non-cancer registry recruitment sources for a digital intervention to improve skin self-exams and sun protection among melanoma survivors. The objective of this study is to address critical knowledge gaps in melanoma research recruitment by comparing enrollment rates and participant demographics across digital and clinical sources, including social media, electronic health messaging, and dermatology practice network outreach. Methods: Adults aged 18-89 with a prior stage 0-III melanoma diagnosis, 3 months to 5 years post-surgery, no current disease, and nonadherent to thorough skin self-exams were eligible for this study. Recruitment occurred through paid Facebook advertisements targeted at high-melanoma-incidence cities, unpaid social media influencer outreach, EHR messages, and a national dermatology practice network. An online eligibility screener was disseminated across all sources, with safeguards to prevent fraudulent entries. Individuals deemed eligible were contacted to confirm eligibility and completed oral and digital consent before enrollment. Enrollment rates and demographics were calculated. Results: Of 230 participants enrolled from non-cancer registry sources, 122 participants (53.0%) came from a dermatology provider network, 56 participants (24.3%) came from social media, 46 participants (20.0%) came from EHR messaging, and 6 participants (2.6%) came from other sources. Social media recruitment yielded younger, predominantly female, more frequently employed and privately insured participants, and a higher proportion diagnosed at higher stages, compared with other sources. Despite recruitment success, over 1,700 fraudulent entries were detected and removed. Conclusions: Non-cancer registry sources can support enrollment for digital intervention research, but each approach carries unique trade-offs. Provider networks delivered high volumes of eligible participants with minimal burden, while social media provided broad reach but required intensive fraud monitoring and additional safeguards. These findings suggest that combining provider-based outreach with carefully managed social media efforts may offer an effective balance between reach and data integrity when recruiting cancer survivors.

Indexed as

cancer survivorsdigital interventionmelanomaRecruitmentsocial media

Identifiers

PMID42170224
PMCPMC13187555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.