The purpose of this study was to assesses the effectiveness of proactive and reactive methods in the recruitment of Black and Latino adolescents into a vaping-prevention randomized controlled trial (RCT). This study also assessed the characteristics of study participants by recruitment method. Proactive recruitment strategies included study presentations at community-based events (e.g., festivals, health fairs), school-based events (e.g., back-to-school events, after-school programs), and recreational centers (e.g., fitness centers, malls). Reactive recruitment strategies included study advertisements via social media (e.g., Facebook posts shared by local community-based organizations), word of mouth, and an academic-based research hub. Using proactive and reactive methods, in a 4-month period, 362 Black and Latino adolescents were successfully enrolled into the RCT. Compared to the proactive method, adolescents screened reactively were equally likely to be eligible but significantly more likely to enroll in the study. However, both proactive and reactive strategies made notable contributions to the overall recruitment effort. Moreover, proactive and reactive methods attracted adolescents with different characteristics (e.g., age, gender, sexual orientation, etc.). These findings suggest that both proactive and reactive recruitment strategies should be implemented for studies interested in recruiting a diverse sample of Black and Latino adolescents.

The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the immediate impact of vaping prevention graphic messages on the susceptibility to future vaping among Black and Latino adolescents (ages 12 to 17). Graphic messages (available in English and Spanish) were developed using participatory research procedures with Black and Latino adolescents. Recruitment was conducted by a team of diverse, bilingual (English and Spanish), trained recruiters. Participants (n = 362) were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 schema to receive one of four graphic messages (health rewards, financial rewards, autonomy, and social norms). Overall, all graphic messages but one showed a slight decrease in the number of participants susceptible to future vaping, though none of these differences was statistically significant. The graphic message on health rewards decreased the number of participants susceptible to future vaping the most (55.7% vs. 50%, at pre- vs. post-viewing, p = 0.125), followed by the graphic messages on social norms and autonomy (55.1% vs. 52.8%, p = 0.687; 55.4% vs. 52.2%, p = 0.435; respectively). The graphic message on financial rewards increased the number of participants susceptible to future vaping slightly (52.7% vs. 53.8%, p = 1.00). Future research is needed to evaluate susceptibility to future vaping before and after exposure to different and/or repeated vaping prevention graphic messages.

No abstract