Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFaro, Jamie
dc.contributor.authorNagawa, Catherine S.
dc.contributor.authorOrvek, Elizabeth Aaker
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Bridget M.
dc.contributor.authorBlok, Amanda C.
dc.contributor.authorHouston, Thomas K.
dc.contributor.authorKamberi, Ariana
dc.contributor.authorAllison, Jeroan J.
dc.contributor.authorPerson, Sharina D.
dc.contributor.authorSadasivam, Rajani S.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:08:26.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T15:55:23Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T15:55:23Z
dc.date.issued2021-02-08
dc.date.submitted2021-04-14
dc.identifier.citation<p>Faro JM, Nagawa CS, Orvek EA, Smith BM, Blok AC, Houston TK, Kamberi A, Allison JJ, Person SD, Sadasivam RS. Comparing recruitment strategies for a digital smoking cessation intervention: Technology-assisted peer recruitment, social media, ResearchMatch, and smokefree.gov. Contemp Clin Trials. 2021 Feb 8;103:106314. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2021.106314. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33571687. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2021.106314">Link to article on publisher's site</a></p>
dc.identifier.issn1551-7144 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.cct.2021.106314
dc.identifier.pmid33571687
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/29742
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Choosing the right recruitment strategy has implications for the successful conduct of a trial. Our objective was to compare a novel peer recruitment strategy to four other recruitment strategies for a large randomized trial testing a digital tobacco intervention. METHODS: We compared enrollment rates, demographic and baseline smoking characteristics, and odds of completing the 6-month study by recruitment strategy. Cost of recruitment strategies per retained participant was calculated using staff personnel time and advertisement costs. FINDINGS: We enrolled 1487 participants between August 2017 and March 2019 from: Peer recruitment n = 273 (18.4%), Facebook Ads n = 505 (34%), Google Ads = 200 (13.4%), ResearchMatch n = 356 (23.9%) and Smokefree.govn = 153 (10.3%). Mean enrollment rate per active recruitment month: 1) Peer recruitment, n = 13.9, 2) Facebook ads, n = 25.3, 3) Google ads, n = 10.51, 4) Research Match, n = 59.3, and 5) Smokefree.gov, n = 13.9. Peer recruitment recruited the greatest number of males (n = 110, 40.3%), young adults (n = 41, 14.7%), participants with a high school degree or less (n = 24, 12.5%) and smokers within one's social network. Compared to peer recruitment (retention rate = 57%), participants from Facebook were less likely (OR 0.46, p < 0.01, retention rate = 40%), and those from ResearchMatch were more likely to complete the study (OR 1.90, p < 0.01, retention rate = 70%). Peer recruitment was moderate in cost per retained participant ($47.18) and substantially less costly than Facebook ($173.60). CONCLUSIONS: Though peer recruitment had lower enrollment than other strategies, it may provide greater access to harder to reach populations and possibly others who smoke within one's social network while being moderately cost-effective. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03224520.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=33571687&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a></p>
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2021.106314
dc.subjectDigital intervention
dc.subjectDissemination
dc.subjectPeer recruitment
dc.subjectSmoking cessation
dc.subjectTailored
dc.subjectHealth Information Technology
dc.subjectHealth Services Administration
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.subjectSocial Media
dc.subjectSubstance Abuse and Addiction
dc.titleComparing recruitment strategies for a digital smoking cessation intervention: Technology-assisted peer recruitment, social media, ResearchMatch, and smokefree.gov
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleContemporary clinical trials
dc.source.volume103
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/faculty_pubs/1954
dc.identifier.contextkey22484429
html.description.abstract<p>BACKGROUND: Choosing the right recruitment strategy has implications for the successful conduct of a trial. Our objective was to compare a novel peer recruitment strategy to four other recruitment strategies for a large randomized trial testing a digital tobacco intervention.</p> <p>METHODS: We compared enrollment rates, demographic and baseline smoking characteristics, and odds of completing the 6-month study by recruitment strategy. Cost of recruitment strategies per retained participant was calculated using staff personnel time and advertisement costs.</p> <p>FINDINGS: We enrolled 1487 participants between August 2017 and March 2019 from: Peer recruitment n = 273 (18.4%), Facebook Ads n = 505 (34%), Google Ads = 200 (13.4%), ResearchMatch n = 356 (23.9%) and Smokefree.govn = 153 (10.3%). Mean enrollment rate per active recruitment month: 1) Peer recruitment, n = 13.9, 2) Facebook ads, n = 25.3, 3) Google ads, n = 10.51, 4) Research Match, n = 59.3, and 5) Smokefree.gov, n = 13.9. Peer recruitment recruited the greatest number of males (n = 110, 40.3%), young adults (n = 41, 14.7%), participants with a high school degree or less (n = 24, 12.5%) and smokers within one's social network. Compared to peer recruitment (retention rate = 57%), participants from Facebook were less likely (OR 0.46, p < 0.01, retention rate = 40%), and those from ResearchMatch were more likely to complete the study (OR 1.90, p < 0.01, retention rate = 70%). Peer recruitment was moderate in cost per retained participant ($47.18) and substantially less costly than Facebook ($173.60).</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: Though peer recruitment had lower enrollment than other strategies, it may provide greater access to harder to reach populations and possibly others who smoke within one's social network while being moderately cost-effective. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03224520.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathfaculty_pubs/1954
dc.contributor.departmentGraduate School of Biomedical Sciences
dc.contributor.departmentDivision of Biostatistics and Health Services Research, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences
dc.contributor.departmentDivision of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences
dc.source.pages106314


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record