Louise Reagan1, Sarah Y Nowlin, Stacia B Birdsall, Juliana Gabbay, Allison Vorderstrasse, Constance Johnson, Gail D'Eramo Melkus. 1. Louise Reagan, PhD, APRN, ANP-BC, FAANP, is Assistant Professor, School of Nursing, University of Connecticut, Storrs. At the time of this research, she was a Postdoctoral Fellow at New York University Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York. Sarah Y. Nowlin, PhD, MSN, is Postdoctoral Associate, New York University Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York. Stacia B. Birdsall, MPH, CNM, is Research Assistant, New York University Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York. Juliana Gabbay, BA, is a second year medical student at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, New York. At the time of this research, she was Research Assistant, New York University Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York. Allison Vorderstrasse, DNSc, APRN, FAAN, is Associate Professor, New York University Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York. Constance Johnson, PhD, RN, FAAN, is Associate Dean for Research, the University of Texas Jane and Robert Cizik School of Nursing, Houston. Gail D'Eramo Melkus, EdD, C-NP, FAAN, is Associate Dean for Research, New York University Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Facebook (FB) has been widely used recently to recruit participants for adult health research. However, little is known about its effectiveness, cost, and the characteristics of participants recruited via FB when compared to other recruitment methods. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this integrative review was to examine the published evidence concerning the use of FB in participant recruitment for adult health research, as compared to other social media, online, and traditional recruitment methods. METHODS: In this integrative review, we used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were the electronic databases used to identify the published articles. In regard to language, the search was limited. RESULTS: The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of using FB for recruitment in healthcare research as compared to more traditional forms of recruitment remain unclear. Reporting of recruitment strategies is inconsistent, and costs are often not included. FB is being used for recruitment frequently with other methods and, although often effective, can be costly. DISCUSSION: FB is used to recruit participants for a variety of studies, with researchers using both free and paid ads to reach potential participants. Reporting of recruitment methods needs to be more rigorous, streamlined, and standardized in scientific papers.
BACKGROUND: Facebook (FB) has been widely used recently to recruit participants for adult health research. However, little is known about its effectiveness, cost, and the characteristics of participants recruited via FB when compared to other recruitment methods. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this integrative review was to examine the published evidence concerning the use of FB in participant recruitment for adult health research, as compared to other social media, online, and traditional recruitment methods. METHODS: In this integrative review, we used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were the electronic databases used to identify the published articles. In regard to language, the search was limited. RESULTS: The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of using FB for recruitment in healthcare research as compared to more traditional forms of recruitment remain unclear. Reporting of recruitment strategies is inconsistent, and costs are often not included. FB is being used for recruitment frequently with other methods and, although often effective, can be costly. DISCUSSION: FB is used to recruit participants for a variety of studies, with researchers using both free and paid ads to reach potential participants. Reporting of recruitment methods needs to be more rigorous, streamlined, and standardized in scientific papers.
Authors: Eunji Cho; Mary Jo Gilmer; Debra L Friedman; Verna L Hendricks-Ferguson; Pamela S Hinds; Terrah Foster Akard Journal: Prog Palliat Care Date: 2021-03-29
Authors: Renaldo M Bernard; Claudia Toppo; Alberto Raggi; Marleen de Mul; Carlota de Miquel; Maria Teresa Pugliese; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Ana Ortiz-Tallo; Luis Salvador-Carulla; Sue Lukersmith; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen; Dorota Merecz-Kot; Kaja Staszewska; Carla Sabariego Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Lisa A Marsch; Aimee Campbell; Cynthia Campbell; Ching-Hua Chen; Emre Ertin; Udi Ghitza; Chantal Lambert-Harris; Saeed Hassanpour; August F Holtyn; Yih-Ing Hser; Petra Jacobs; Jeffrey D Klausner; Shea Lemley; David Kotz; Andrea Meier; Bethany McLeman; Jennifer McNeely; Varun Mishra; Larissa Mooney; Edward Nunes; Chrysovalantis Stafylis; Catherine Stanger; Elizabeth Saunders; Geetha Subramaniam; Sean Young Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-03
Authors: Silvia Gallegati; Luca Aquilanti; Valerio Temperini; Gloria Polinesi; Giorgio Rappelli Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rachel Pozzar; Marilyn J Hammer; Meghan Underhill-Blazey; Alexi A Wright; James A Tulsky; Fangxin Hong; Daniel A Gundersen; Donna L Berry Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 7.076