Stephen P Juraschek1,2, Timothy B Plante1,3, Jeanne Charleston1, Edgar R Miller1, Hsin-Chieh Yeh1, Lawrence J Appel1, Gerald J Jerome4, Debra Gayles1, Nowella Durkin1, Karen White1, Arlene Dalcin1, Manuel Hermosilla5. 1. 1 The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and The Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. 2 Division of General Medicine and Primary Care Section for Research, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. 3 The Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 4. 4 Towson University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. 5 Carey School of Business, Johns HopkinsA University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Despite widespread Internet adoption, online advertising remains an underutilized tool to recruit participants into clinical trials. Whether online advertising is a cost-effective method to enroll participants compared to other traditional forms of recruitment is not known. METHODS: Recruitment for the Survivorship Promotion In Reducing IGF-1 Trial, a community-based study of cancer survivors, was conducted from June 2015 through December 2016 via in-person community fairs, advertisements in periodicals, and direct postal mailings. In addition, "Right Column" banner ads were purchased from Facebook to direct participants to the Survivorship Promotion In Reducing IGF-1 Trial website. Response rates, costs of traditional and online advertisements, and demographic data were determined and compared across different online and traditional recruitment strategies. Micro-trials optimizing features of online advertisements were also explored. RESULTS: Of the 406 respondents to our overall outreach efforts, 6% (24 of 406) were referred from online advertising. Facebook advertisements were shown over 3 million times (impressions) to 124,476 people, which resulted in 4401 clicks on our advertisement. Of these, 24 people ultimately contacted study staff, 6 underwent prescreening, and 4 enrolled in the study. The cost of online advertising per enrollee was $794 when targeting a general population versus $1426 when accounting for strategies that specifically targeted African Americans or men. By contrast, community fairs, direct mail, or periodicals cost $917, $799, or $436 per enrollee, respectively. Utilization of micro-trials to assess online ads identified subtleties (e.g. use of an advertisement title) that substantially impacted viewer interest in our trial. CONCLUSION: Online advertisements effectively directed a relevant population to our website, which resulted in new enrollees in the Survivorship Promotion In Reducing IGF-1 Trial at a cost comparable to traditional methods. Costs were substantially greater with online recruitment when targeting under-represented populations, however. Additional research using online micro-trial tools is needed to evaluate means of more precise recruitment to improve yields in under-represented groups. Potential gains from faster recruitment speed remain to be determined.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Despite widespread Internet adoption, online advertising remains an underutilized tool to recruit participants into clinical trials. Whether online advertising is a cost-effective method to enroll participants compared to other traditional forms of recruitment is not known. METHODS: Recruitment for the Survivorship Promotion In Reducing IGF-1 Trial, a community-based study of cancer survivors, was conducted from June 2015 through December 2016 via in-person community fairs, advertisements in periodicals, and direct postal mailings. In addition, "Right Column" banner ads were purchased from Facebook to direct participants to the Survivorship Promotion In Reducing IGF-1 Trial website. Response rates, costs of traditional and online advertisements, and demographic data were determined and compared across different online and traditional recruitment strategies. Micro-trials optimizing features of online advertisements were also explored. RESULTS: Of the 406 respondents to our overall outreach efforts, 6% (24 of 406) were referred from online advertising. Facebook advertisements were shown over 3 million times (impressions) to 124,476 people, which resulted in 4401 clicks on our advertisement. Of these, 24 people ultimately contacted study staff, 6 underwent prescreening, and 4 enrolled in the study. The cost of online advertising per enrollee was $794 when targeting a general population versus $1426 when accounting for strategies that specifically targeted African Americans or men. By contrast, community fairs, direct mail, or periodicals cost $917, $799, or $436 per enrollee, respectively. Utilization of micro-trials to assess online ads identified subtleties (e.g. use of an advertisement title) that substantially impacted viewer interest in our trial. CONCLUSION: Online advertisements effectively directed a relevant population to our website, which resulted in new enrollees in the Survivorship Promotion In Reducing IGF-1 Trial at a cost comparable to traditional methods. Costs were substantially greater with online recruitment when targeting under-represented populations, however. Additional research using online micro-trial tools is needed to evaluate means of more precise recruitment to improve yields in under-represented groups. Potential gains from faster recruitment speed remain to be determined.
Authors: Erin L Nash; Deborah Gilroy; Wichat Srikusalanukul; Walter P Abhayaratna; Tony Stanton; Geoffrey Mitchell; Michael Stowasser; James E Sharman Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: R Foy; J Parry; A Duggan; B Delaney; S Wilson; N Th Lewin-Van Den Broek; A Lassen; L Vickers; P Myres Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Alison M McDonald; Rosemary C Knight; Marion K Campbell; Vikki A Entwistle; Adrian M Grant; Jonathan A Cook; Diana R Elbourne; David Francis; Jo Garcia; Ian Roberts; Claire Snowdon Journal: Trials Date: 2006-04-07 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Tina Christensen; Anders H Riis; Elizabeth E Hatch; Lauren A Wise; Marie G Nielsen; Kenneth J Rothman; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Ellen M Mikkelsen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Amanda L Graham; Ye Fang; Jose L Moreno; Shawn L Streiff; Jorge Villegas; Ricardo F Muñoz; Kenneth P Tercyak; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Donna M Vallone Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Hailey N Miller; Kelly T Gleason; Stephen P Juraschek; Timothy B Plante; Cassie Lewis-Land; Bonnie Woods; Lawrence J Appel; Daniel E Ford; Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: B R Simon Rosser; Morgan Wright; Chris J Hoefer; Elizabeth J Polter; Nidhi Kohli; Christopher W Wheldon; Ryan Haggart; Kristine Mc Talley; Darryl Mitteldorf; Gunna Kilian; Badrinath R Konety; Michael W Ross; William West Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 2.599
Authors: Hailey N Miller; Timothy B Plante; Kelly T Gleason; Jeanne Charleston; Christine M Mitchell; Edgar R Miller; Lawrence J Appel; Stephen P Juraschek Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-10-12 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: Katherine A Guthrie; Bette Caan; Susan Diem; Kristine E Ensrud; Sharon R Greaves; Joseph C Larson; Katherine M Newton; Susan D Reed; Andrea Z LaCroix Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Hailey N Miller; Jeanne Charleston; Beiwen Wu; Kelly Gleason; Karen White; Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb; Daniel E Ford; Timothy B Plante; Allan C Gelber; Lawrence J Appel; Edgar R Miller; Stephen P Juraschek Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Nisa M Maruthur; Nae-Yuh Wang; Gerald J Jerome; Arlene T Dalcin; Eva Tseng; Karen White; Edgar R Miller; Stephen P Juraschek; Noel T Mueller; Jeanne Charleston; Nowella Durkin; Ahmed Hassoon; Dina G Lansey; Norma F Kanarek; Michael A Carducci; Lawrence J Appel Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 5.958