| Literature DB >> 31217024 |
Karen Bracken1, Wendy Hague2, Anthony Keech2, Ann Conway3, David J Handelsman3, Mathis Grossmann4, David Jesudason5, Bronwyn Stuckey6, Bu B Yeap7, Warrick Inder8, Carolyn Allan9, Robert McLachlan9, Kristy P Robledo2, Gary Wittert10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective interventions are required to prevent the current rapid increase in the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes. Clinical trials of large-scale interventions to prevent Type 2 diabetes are essential but recruitment is challenging and expensive, and there are limited data regarding the most cost-effective and efficient approaches to recruitment. This paper aims to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of a range of promotional strategies used to recruit men to a large Type 2 diabetes prevention trial.Entities:
Keywords: Advertising; Diabetes prevention; Men’s health; Participant recruitment; Randomised controlled trials; Recruitment strategies; Social media
Year: 2019 PMID: 31217024 PMCID: PMC6585027 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3485-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Trials ISSN: 1745-6215 Impact factor: 2.279
Recruitment plan formulation
| Planning considerations | Details |
|---|---|
| Target audience | Men aged 50–74 years who were overweight or obese and living in a capital city with a participating study centre. No further restrictions were placed as other eligibility criteria were to be assessed during the screening process |
| Call to action | Prospective participants were invited to visit study website or call a central information line to learn more about the study and complete the pre-screening questionnaire |
| Content of promotional material | Content decisions were guided by qualitative research in men’s health communication preferences [ Communication style: • Frank, humorous and empathetic message [ • Simple, informal and easy-to-remember language Key components of the message: 1. Identification of the problem: men aged 50–74 years and overweight/obese are at risk of diabetes, weight gain and urinary and sexual problems 2. Positioning of the study as a solution: the Testosterone for the Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes (T4DM) study can support men to lose excess weight and address related health issues 3. Call to action: invitation to join the study and instructions on how to join |
| Promotional strategies/platforms | Promising promotional strategies were identified by review of the published literature, discussion with the study’s industry partners, brainstorming by the Steering Committee, suggestions from study participants and pro-bono advice from marketing professionals. Strategies were first tested for a short period of time, and if they appeared effective and affordable, were adopted on an ongoing basis. |
Fig. 1Number of participants screened, and recruitment strategies conducted, by calendar month
How screened and randomised participants reported hearing about the study
| How men reported hearing about the study1 | Description of associated recruitment promotions2 | # Screened | # Randomised (%)3 | Contribution (%)4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radio advertising | 7110 × 30-s paid advertisement placements across 20 radio stations | 7667 | 418 (5%) | 42% |
| TV news | 8 television news stories (6 national and 2 in single cities) | 4127 | 202 (5%) | 20% |
| Mail-out by DHS | 130,000 invitation letters posted to government mailing list | 3211 | 173 (5%) | 17% |
| Community promotions | Posters, community events, promotion on other organisations’ websites, newsletters and Facebook pages | 998 | 43 (4%) | 4% |
| Word of mouth (not otherwise specified) | N/A | 491 | 34 (7%) | 3% |
| Newspaper news | 9 newspaper stories (3 major newspapers, 3 local newspapers, 2 online news sites, 1 professional magazine) | 622 | 31 (5%) | 3% |
| Healthcare provider | 1024 GP clinics mailed, attendance at GP events, distribution of posters to pathology collection centres, GPs, clinics and hospitals | 450 | 29 (6%) | 3% |
| 94 unpaid Facebook posts, 23 paid Facebook advertisements and boosted posts, requests to participants and organisations to share study on Facebook | 369 | 16 (4%) | 2% | |
| Other internet | Three Google AdWords campaigns, study website, links on other websites | 410 | 15 (4%) | 1% |
| Radio news | 7 radio news stories (all in single cities) | 182 | 10 (5%) | 1% |
| Mail-out by GP | Invitations mailed from GP clinic near to one study site. Number of invitations sent not known | 47 | 1 (2%) | 0% |
| Newspaper advertising | 1 advertisement in a Sunday paper in 1 city | 33 | 1 (3%) | 0% |
| Football club promotion | Email newsletter and 1 week of website advertising at one football club near to 1 study site | 5 | 0 (0%) | 0% |
| Not specified | N/A | 410 | 34 (8%) | 3% |
| Total | 19,022 | 1007 (5%) | 100% |
1Where a participant reported hearing about the study from multiple sources only the primary source is shown
2Unless otherwise specified, strategies were implemented across all study sites
3Percentage of screened participants who went on to be randomised to the study
4Contribution defined as the percentage of all participants randomised who were randomised from a particular source
Direct cost of recruitment strategies
| Recruitment strategy2 | Total direct cost1 | Cost per screening | Cost per randomisation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Radio advertising | $451,705 | $59 | $1081 |
| Mail-out by DHS | $128,968 | $40 | $745 |
| Community promotions | $1223 | N/A4 | N/A4 |
| Healthcare provider | $12723 | N/A4 | N/A4 |
| $10,029 | N/A4 | N/A4 | |
| Google advertising | $1931 | N/A4 | N/A4 |
| Mail-out by GP | $1104 | $23 | $1104 |
| Newspaper advertising | $1941 | $59 | $1941 |
| Football club promotion | $1561 | $312 | N/A5 |
| Total | $598,633 | $31 | $594 |
DHS Department of Human Services, GP general practitioner, N/A not applicable
1All costs are expressed in Australian dollars. Costs have been adjusted for inflation and are expressed in June 2018 prices
2Excluding strategies that did not involve any direct cost (TV, radio and newspaper news coverage, word of mouth)
3Cost of printing and posting posters. Community promotions and contact with healthcare providers was predominantly free of direct cost
4Where it was not possible to differentiate participants enrolled through paid and unpaid activities; for example, paid Facebook advertising vs unpaid sharing of Facebook posts, a cost per screening and randomisation is not reported
5No participants were randomised as a result of this strategy. The cost per randomisation could not be calculated
Promotional strategy atttributes, outcomes and appraisal of effectiveness
| Attributes | Assessment of outcomes | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promotion | Format1, length2 | Direct3 | Targeted3 | High reach3 | Frequent3 | Online component | Contributed to enrolment3 | Direct cost per participant4 | Staff effort per participant4 | Appraisal of effectiveness5 |
| TV news and current affair coverage | Audio-visual, medium | +++ | + | Yes | +++ | – – | Highly effective Advantages: no cost, very high reach, audio-visual format, credible source Disadvantages: single exposure, challenging to arrange | |||
| Mass mail-out by DHS | Text + image, long | +++ | ++ | +++ | + | No | +++ | – – | – | Highly effective Advantages: direct, targeted, high reach, credible source Disadvantages: administrative process for approval, cost |
| Radio advertising | Audio, short | + | +++ | +++ | No | +++ | – – – | – | Highly effective Advantages: high reach and frequency Disadvantages: costly, short audio-only format | |
| Newsletter mentions: businesses and community organisations | Text (+ image), usually short | + | + | ++ | + | Yes | ++ | – – | Effective Advantages: no cost, moderate reach, credible source, potential to identify influencer/champion within organisation Disadvantages: challenge of identifying willing organisations | |
| Word of mouth | UNK | + | UNK | + | UNK | UNK | ++ | Effective Advantages: no cost, trusted source Disadvantages: usually incidental | ||
| Newspaper articles: print and online | Text (+ image), medium | +++ | + | Yes | ++ | – – | Effective Advantages: high reach (although shrinking), offline and online options, credible source Disadvantages: single exposure, challenging to arrange | |||
| Publicly displayed posters | Text + image, medium | + | + | ++ | No | ++ | – – – | Effective Advantages: low/no cost, simple, local to centres Disadvantages: small potential reach, time-consuming | ||
| Online promotion: businesses and community organisations | Text (+ image), short | + | ++ | + | Yes | + | – – | Moderately effective Advantages: no cost, can be a credible source Disadvantages: single exposure, challenging to arrange | ||
| Radio news coverage/interviews | Audio, medium | +++ | + | No | + | – – | Moderately effective Advantages: high reach, credible source Disadvantages: audio-only, single exposure, challenging to arrange | |||
| Referral by GP | Face-to-face | +++ | +++ | + | + | No | + | – – | Limited effectiveness Advantages: direct and very targeted, a trusted medical source Disadvantages: limited reach, challenging to seek referrals from health professionals not affiliated with trial | |
| Direct approach/invitation from study centre | Text, long | ++ | +++ | + | + | No | + | – – – | Limited effectiveness Advantages: direct and very targeted, a trusted medical source Disadvantages: very limited reach, challenging to identify potential participants through hospitals due to nature of trial | |
| Referral by pathology service (printed on bottom of path results) | Text, short | ++ | +++ | + | + | No | + | – – | Limited effectiveness Advantages: direct and very targeted, a trusted medical source Disadvantages: limited reach, challenging to arrange | |
| Organic Google search | Text, short | ++ | ++ | UNK | Yes | + | – | Limited effectiveness Advantages: no cost Disadvantages: limited reach due to nature of trial | ||
| Paid Google search | Text, short | +++ | + | UNK | Yes | + | – | – – | Limited effectiveness Advantages: potentially high reach, affordable compared to other paid strategies, flexible Disadvantages: technically challenging, potential limited by the nature of trial | |
| Facebook-paid ad | Text + image (+ audio-visual), short | ++ | ++ | +++ | Yes | + | – | – – | Limited effectiveness Advantages: affordable compared to other paid strategies, potential to use images and video, high frequency, flexible Disadvantages: technically challenging, limited engagement with trial demographic | |
| Community events: presentation/stand | Mixed | ++ | ++ | + | + | No | – | – – – | Ineffective Advantages: direct and potentially targeted Disadvantages: very limited reach. Time-consuming | |
| Newspaper advertisement: print | Text + image, short | ++ | ++ | No6 | – | – – – | – | Ineffective Advantages: Potential to use images Disadvantages: Costly, falling reach | ||
| Mass mail-out by GP | Text, long | +++ | +++ | + | + | No | – | – – – | – | Ineffective Advantages: direct and very targeted, a trusted medical source Disadvantages: limited reach, costly |
| Unpaid post on study Facebook page | Text + image, short | + | + | + | ++ | Yes | – | – – – | Ineffective Advantages: no cost Disadvantages: limited engagement with trial demographic, time-consuming if done with high frequency | |
1Format categorised as text, image, audio, audio-visual, face-to-face or mixed
2Length categorised as short, medium or long
3+++ = to a great extent, ++ = somewhat, + = a little, [blank] = not at all, UNK = unknown
4 – – – = high, – – = moderate, – = low, [blank] = none
5Qualitative judgement of the effectiveness (in terms of the estimated number of participants enrolled), advantages and disadvantages of each strategy
6Online newspaper advertising is a possible recruitment strategy but was not used in this study
Results of Google advertising campaigns
| Campaign | Date range | Maximum cost per click bid1 | # Clicks2 | # Impressions3 | Click-through rate4 | Total cost5 | Average cost per click |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diabetes prevention: Campaign 1 | Jul 13—Oct 14 | Auto6: $1.01 | 4940 | 46,325 | 10.66% | $1040 | $0.21 |
| Diabetes prevention: Campaign 2 | Oct 15 | $2.00 | 684 | 4971 | 13.76% | $356 | $0.52 |
| Nocturia campaign | Oct 15—Dec 15 | $3.00 | 315 | 5906 | 5.33% | $535 | $1.70 |
| Total | 5939 | 57,202 | 10% | $1931 | $0.33 |
1An amount set by the advertiser as the maximum amount they are willing to pay per click. The actual amount paid may be less than this depending on how much other advertisers have bid
2Number of times a user clicked on the link within an advertisement
3The number of times that an advertisement was shown on screen
4The number of times an ad was clicked on, divided by the total number of times the ad was shown
5All costs are expressed in Australian dollars. Costs have been adjusted for inflation and are expressed in June 2018 prices
6The maximum bid for this campaign was set automatically by Google AdWords to optimise results