Michael T Nolte1, Melissa J Shauver2, Kevin C Chung3. 1. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI USA. 3. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI USA ; Section of Plastic Surgery, The University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, 2130 Taubman Center, SPC 5340, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5340 USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality normative data requires a diverse sample of participants and plays an important role in the appropriate use of health outcomes. Using social media and other online resources for survey recruitment is a tempting prospect, but the effectiveness of these methods in collecting a diverse sample is unknown. The purpose of this study is to pilot test four methods of recruitment to determine their ability to produce a sample representative of the general US population. METHODS: This project is part of a larger study to gather normative data for the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). We used flyers, e-mail, Facebook, and an institution-specific clinical research recruitment Web site to direct participants to complete an online version of the MHQ. Participants also provided comorbidity and demographic information. RESULTS: The institution-specific recruitment Web site yielded the greatest number of respondents in an age distribution that mirrored the US population. Facebook was effective for recruiting young adults, and e-mail was successful for recruiting the older adults. None of the methods was successful in reaching an ethnically diverse sample. CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining normative data that is truly representative of the US population is a difficult task. The use of any one recruitment method is unlikely to result in a representative sample, but a greater understanding of these methods will empower researchers to use them to target specific populations. This pilot analysis provides support for the use of Facebook and clinical research sites in addition to traditional methods of e-mail and paper flyers.
BACKGROUND: Quality normative data requires a diverse sample of participants and plays an important role in the appropriate use of health outcomes. Using social media and other online resources for survey recruitment is a tempting prospect, but the effectiveness of these methods in collecting a diverse sample is unknown. The purpose of this study is to pilot test four methods of recruitment to determine their ability to produce a sample representative of the general US population. METHODS: This project is part of a larger study to gather normative data for the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). We used flyers, e-mail, Facebook, and an institution-specific clinical research recruitment Web site to direct participants to complete an online version of the MHQ. Participants also provided comorbidity and demographic information. RESULTS: The institution-specific recruitment Web site yielded the greatest number of respondents in an age distribution that mirrored the US population. Facebook was effective for recruiting young adults, and e-mail was successful for recruiting the older adults. None of the methods was successful in reaching an ethnically diverse sample. CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining normative data that is truly representative of the US population is a difficult task. The use of any one recruitment method is unlikely to result in a representative sample, but a greater understanding of these methods will empower researchers to use them to target specific populations. This pilot analysis provides support for the use of Facebook and clinical research sites in addition to traditional methods of e-mail and paper flyers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Normative data; Participant recruitment; Social networks
Authors: Frank G Hunsaker; Dominic A Cioffi; Peter C Amadio; James G Wright; Beth Caughlin Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Florus J van der Giesen; Rob G Nelissen; Johannes H Arendzen; Zuzana de Jong; Ron Wolterbeek; Theodora P Vliet Vlieland Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Kristin L Corey; Mary K McCurry; Kristen A Sethares; Meg Bourbonniere; Karen B Hirschman; Salimah H Meghani Journal: Aging Ment Health Date: 2018-12-27 Impact factor: 3.658
Authors: Michael T Nolte; James M Parrish; Nathaniel W Jenkins; Elliot D K Cha; Conor P Lynch; Caroline N Jadczak; Shruthi Mohan; Cara E Geoghegan; Nadia M Hrynewycz; Kern Singh Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2022-06-20
Authors: Elisabeth Raser; Mailin Gaupp-Berghausen; Esther Anaya-Boig; Ione Avila-Palencia; Audrey de Nazelle; Evi Dons; Helen Franzen; Regine Gerike; Thomas Götschi; Francesco Iacorossi; Reinhard Hössinger; Mark Nieuwenhuijsen; David Rojas-Rueda; Julian Sanchez; Emilia Smeds; Manja Deforth; Arnout Standaert; Erik Stigell; Tom Cole-Hunter; Luc Int Panis Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-03-09 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Cauane Blumenberg; Ana Maria Baptista Menezes; Helen Gonçalves; Maria Cecília Formoso Assunção; Fernando César Wehrmeister; Aluísio J D Barros Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Elena Olariu; Marian Sorin Paveliu; Eugen Baican; Yemi Oluboyede; Luke Vale; Ileana Gabriela Niculescu-Aron Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Judith Byaruhanga; Flora Tzelepis; Christine Paul; John Wiggers; Emma Byrnes; Christophe Lecathelinais Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 5.428