| Literature DB >> 34643544 |
Katja Reuter1,2, Chang Liu3, NamQuyen Le4, Praveen Angyan2, James M Finley3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participant recruitment remains a barrier to conducting clinical research. The disabling nature of a stroke, which often includes functional and cognitive impairments, and the acute stage of illness at which patients are appropriate for many trials make recruiting patients particularly complex and challenging. In addition, people aged 65 years and older, which includes most stroke survivors, have been identified as a group that is difficult to reach and is commonly underrepresented in health research, particularly clinical trials. Digital media may provide effective tools to support enrollment efforts of stroke survivors in clinical trials.Entities:
Keywords: Facebook; Google; advertising; clinical research; clinical trial; digital media; enrollment; falls; participant recruitment; recruitment practices; research methods; social media; stroke
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34643544 PMCID: PMC8552096 DOI: 10.2196/28923
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Digital recruitment process for the social network Facebook and Google search results pages.
Characteristics of enrolled study participants by recruitment method.
| Characteristic | Recruited through general practice (n=31), n (%) | Recruited through digital media (n=9), n (%) | Total recruited (N=40), n (%) | ||||
|
| |||||||
|
| 18-29 years | 1 (3.2) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.5) | |||
|
| 30-39 years | 2 (6.5) | 0 (0) | 2 (5.0) | |||
|
| 40-49 years | 3 (9.7) | 3 (33.3) | 6 (15.0) | |||
|
| 50-59 years | 9 (29.0) | 1 (11.1) | 10 (25.0) | |||
|
| 60-69 years | 11 (35.5) | 4 (44.4) | 15 (37.5) | |||
|
| 70-99 years | 5 (16.1) | 1 (11.1) | 6 (15) | |||
|
| |||||||
|
| Male | 21 (64.5) | 4 (44.4) | 25 (62.5) | |||
|
| Female | 10 (35.5) | 5 (55.6) | 15 (37.5) | |||
|
| Other | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |||
|
| |||||||
|
| African American/Black | 6 (19.4) | 2 (22.2) | 8 (20.0) | |||
|
| American Indian/Alaska Native | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |||
|
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 7 (22.6) | 5 (55.6) | 12 (30.0) | |||
|
| Hispanic | 9 (29.0) | 1 (11.1) | 10 (25.0) | |||
|
| Middle Eastern | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |||
|
| White | 8 (25.8) | 1 (11.1) | 9 (22.5) | |||
|
| Other | 9 (29.0) | 0 (0) | 9 (22.5) | |||
Performance of digital recruitment ads.
| Ad run dates | Impressions, n | Link clicks, n | Cost ($) | Study page contacts, n | People screened, n | People enrolled, n | Cost per click ($) | Cost per enrollee ($)a | |||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
| 5/21/2019-6/26/2019 | 51,435 | 580 | 886.43 | 15 | 6 | 4 | 1.53 | 221.60 | ||||||||
|
| 5/22/2019-6/26/2019 | 75,459 | 1033 | 1604.13 | 21 | 10 | 2 | 1.55 | 802.07 | ||||||||
|
| 5/24/2019-6/26/2019 | 106,992 | 2011 | 1825.5 | 18 | 1 | 0 | 0.91 | —b | ||||||||
|
| 5/24/2019-6/26/2019 | 10,852 | 183 | 226.46 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1.24 | — | ||||||||
|
| 5/21/2019-6/30/2019 | 84,798 | 1118 | 1523.89 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1.36 | 1523.89 | ||||||||
|
| 5/24/2019-6/26/2019 | 33,767 | 373 | 537.28 | 16 | 3 | 1 | 1.44 | 537.28 | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
| 05/13/2019-06/03/2019 | 9473 | 291 | 964.42 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3.31 | 964.42 | ||||||||
|
| 05/13/2019-06/03/2019 | 876 | 23 | 50.59 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2.20 | — | ||||||||
|
| Mean | 46,706.50 | 701.50c | 952.34 | 9.88 | 3 | 1.13 | 1.36d | 846.52e | ||||||||
|
| Total | 373,652 | 5612 | 7618.70 | 79 | 24 | 9 | N/Af | N/A | ||||||||
aValues were calculated by dividing the cost by the number of enrollees for each ad. – indicated that no enrollee was recruited through this ad.
bNot available.
cMeans for clicks and engagement values were rounded off to the nearest whole number. Unless otherwise indicated, these were calculated by dividing by the total number of ads (n=8).
dThis value was calculated by dividing the total cost of the ads for both platforms by the total link clicks.
eThis value was calculated by dividing the total cost of the ads for both platforms by the number of total enrollees.
fN/A: not applicable.
Figure 2Recruitment flow diagrams for general practice and digital recruitment using Facebook and Google. IRB: institutional review board; SM: social media.
Figure 3Example of the advertisement that ran on Facebook, with the lowest cost per enrollee.
Comparison of participant characteristics recruited via general practice versus digital approaches.
| Characteristics | Recruited through general practice | Recruited through digital media | |
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 59 (12) | 59 (11) | .95 |
| Fugl-Meyer Assessment score, median (IQR) | 28 (25-30) | 25 (20-29) | .22 |
| BBSa, median (IQR) | 53 (48-54) | 52 (49-54) | .82 |
| Enrollment rate (number of people enrolled/week)b | 0.57 (31/54) | 1.8 (9/5) | N/Ac |
aBBS: Berg Balance Scale.
bThe rate of enrollment was calculated as the total number of people enrolled from each recruiting method/week between the first and last enrollment.
cN/A: not applicable.