Catherine Sanchez1, Adrienne Grzenda2, Andrea Varias1, Alik S Widge3, Linda L Carpenter4, William M McDonald5, Charles B Nemeroff6, Ned H Kalin7, Glenn Martin8, Mauricio Tohen9, Maria Filippou-Frye1, Drew Ramsey10, Eleni Linos11, Christina Mangurian12, Carolyn I Rodriguez13. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, MN, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Butler Hospital and Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 9. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 10. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 11. Department of Dermatology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 12. Department of Psychiatry, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 13. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA. Electronic address: carolynrodriguez@stanford.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social media holds exciting promise for advancing mental health research recruitment, however, the extent and efficacy to which these platforms are currently in use are underexplored. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to characterize the current use and efficacy of social media in recruiting participants for mental health research. METHOD: A literature review was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO. Only non-duplicative manuscripts written in the English language and published between 1/1/2004-3/31/2019 were selected for further screening. Data extracted included study type and design, participant inclusion criteria, social media platform, advertising strategy, final recruited sample size, recruitment location, year, monetary incentives, comparison to other recruitment methods if performed, and final cost per participant. RESULTS: A total of 176 unique studies that used social media for mental health research recruitment were reviewed. The majority of studies were cross-sectional (62.5%) in design and recruited adults. Facebook was overwhelmingly the recruitment platform of choice (92.6%), with the use of paid advertisements being the predominant strategy (60.8%). Of the reviewed studies, substance abuse (43.8%) and mood disorders (15.3%) were the primary subjects of investigation. In 68.3% of studies, social media recruitment performed as well as or better than traditional recruitment methods in the number and cost of final enrolled participants. The majority of studies used Facebook for recruitment at a median cost per final recruited study participant of $19.47. In 55.6% of the studies, social media recruitment was the more cost-effective recruitment method when compared to traditional methods (e.g., referrals, mailing). CONCLUSION: Social media appears to be an effective and economical recruitment tool for mental health research. The platform raises methodological and privacy concerns not covered in current research regulations that warrant additional consideration. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Social media holds exciting promise for advancing mental health research recruitment, however, the extent and efficacy to which these platforms are currently in use are underexplored. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to characterize the current use and efficacy of social media in recruiting participants for mental health research. METHOD: A literature review was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO. Only non-duplicative manuscripts written in the English language and published between 1/1/2004-3/31/2019 were selected for further screening. Data extracted included study type and design, participant inclusion criteria, social media platform, advertising strategy, final recruited sample size, recruitment location, year, monetary incentives, comparison to other recruitment methods if performed, and final cost per participant. RESULTS: A total of 176 unique studies that used social media for mental health research recruitment were reviewed. The majority of studies were cross-sectional (62.5%) in design and recruited adults. Facebook was overwhelmingly the recruitment platform of choice (92.6%), with the use of paid advertisements being the predominant strategy (60.8%). Of the reviewed studies, substance abuse (43.8%) and mood disorders (15.3%) were the primary subjects of investigation. In 68.3% of studies, social media recruitment performed as well as or better than traditional recruitment methods in the number and cost of final enrolled participants. The majority of studies used Facebook for recruitment at a median cost per final recruited study participant of $19.47. In 55.6% of the studies, social media recruitment was the more cost-effective recruitment method when compared to traditional methods (e.g., referrals, mailing). CONCLUSION: Social media appears to be an effective and economical recruitment tool for mental health research. The platform raises methodological and privacy concerns not covered in current research regulations that warrant additional consideration. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Ingrid L Laemmle-Ruff; Michelle Raggatt; Cassandra J C Wright; Elise R Carrotte; Angela Davis; Rebecca Jenkinson; Megan S C Lim Journal: Sex Health Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 2.706
Authors: Andrea C Villanti; Megan A Jacobs; Grace Zawistowski; Jody Brookover; Cassandra A Stanton; Amanda L Graham Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Kaitlyn E Brodar; Marissa G Hall; Eboneé N Butler; Humberto Parada; Al Stein-Seroussi; Sean Hanley; Noel T Brewer Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rajani S Sadasivam; Sarah L Cutrona; Tana M Luger; Erik Volz; Rebecca Kinney; Sowmya R Rao; Jeroan J Allison; Thomas K Houston Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Carolin C Hoeflich; Anna Wang; Ayodeji Otufowora; Linda B Cottler; Catherine W Striley Journal: Curr Opin Psychiatry Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 4.787
Authors: Alan R Teo; Aaron A Call; Elizabeth R Hooker; Clarissa Fong; Elizabeth Karras; Steven K Dobscha Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2022-09-05