Impact of Baseline Assessment Modality on Enrollment and Retention in a Facebook Smoking Cessation Study

Abstract

BackgroundFew studies have addressed enrollment and retention methods in online smoking cessation interventions. Fully automated Web-based trials can yield large numbers of participants rapidly but suffer from high rates of attrition. Personal contact with participants can increase recruitment of smokers into cessation trials and improve participant retention.ObjectiveTo compare the impact of Web-based (WEB) and phone (PH) baseline assessments on enrollment and retention metrics in the context of a Facebook smoking cessation study.MethodsParticipants were recruited via Facebook and Google ads which were randomly displayed to adult smokers in the United States over 27 days from August to September 2013. On each platform, two identical ads were randomly displayed to users who fit the advertising parameters. Clicking on one of the ads resulted in randomization to WEB, and clicking on the other ad resulted in randomization to PH. Following online eligibility screening and informed consent, participants in the WEB arm completed the baseline survey online whereas PH participants completed the baseline survey by phone with a research assistant. All participants were contacted at 30 days to complete a follow-up survey that assessed use of the cessation intervention and smoking outcomes. Participants were paid $15 for follow-up survey completion.ResultsA total of 4445 people clicked on the WEB ad and 4001 clicked on the PH ad: 12.04% (n=535) of WEB participants and 8.30% (n=332) of PH participants accepted the online study invitation (P<.001). Among the 726 participants who completed online eligibility screening, an equivalent proportion in both arms was eligible and an equivalent proportion of the eligible participants in both arms provided informed consent. There was significant drop-off between consent and completion of the baseline survey in the PH arm, resulting in enrollment rates of 32.7% (35/107) for the PH arm and 67.9% (114/168) for the WEB arm (P<.001). The overall enrollment rate among everyone who clicked on a study ad was 2%. There were no between group differences in the proportion that installed the Facebook app (66/114, 57.9% WEB vs 17/35, 49% PH) or that completed the 30-day follow-up survey (49/114, 43.0% WEB vs 16/35, 46% PH). A total of $6074 was spent on ads, generating 3,834,289 impressions and resulting in 8446 clicks (average cost $0.72 per click). Per participant enrollment costs for advertising alone were $27 WEB and $87 PH.ConclusionsA more intensive phone baseline assessment protocol yielded a lower rate of enrollment, equivalent follow-up rates, and higher enrollment costs compared to a Web-based assessment protocol. Future research should focus on honing mixed-mode assessment protocols to further optimize enrollment and retention.

Beyond Traditional Newspaper Advertisement: Leveraging Facebook-Targeted Advertisement to Recruit Long-Term Smokers for Research

“…Our study did not use an intermediary component as the primary mode of recruitment, rather, we targeted keywords of individual profile “likes” and “interests” that the researchers felt were likely to appear in the profile of long-term current and former smokers (examples include “tobacco,” “tobacco smoking,” “smoking,” “smoking cessation,” “cigarettes,” and “electronic cigarettes”). Most importantly, our findings extend the work of researchers who have demonstrated Facebook’s utility with younger smokers [ 9 , 17 , 23 , 24 ] as we demonstrate Facebook is an effective recruitment tool for older smokers. Furthermore, our findings extend the work of Frandsen et al [ 12 ] by evaluating the yield of the recruitment strategy by monitoring the time (in days) that the Facebook-targeted advertisement was in use, and clicks to website generated and sociodemographic characteristics of the participants recruited.…”

“…Facebook has previously been established as a viable option to recruit young adults into health-related research [ 10 - 17 ] and may be a successful recruitment tool for older adults. Facebook has been a successful recruitment tool to reach adolescents and young adults for a range of study purposes including exploring mental health issues [ 13 , 18 ], examining pubescent hormonal effects in early adolescence [ 19 ], and recruiting for a variety of Web-based intervention studies [ 18 , 20 , 21 ].…”

“…Facebook has also been a successful recruitment strategy for reaching “hard-to-reach” populations such as men who have sex with men [ 22 ] and exploring taboo topics with adolescents and young adults such as abortion [ 16 ]. Finally, studies targeting young adult smokers have demonstrated Facebook advertisements as a successful recruitment tool [ 9 , 17 , 23 , 24 ]. Therefore, our study sought to determine whether Facebook would be a successful recruitment tool in a new domain: older, long-term smokers.…”

A Comparison of Recruitment Methods for an mHealth Intervention Targeting Mothers: Lessons from the Growing Healthy Program

“…This study did not compare participant characteristics by recruitment method, which is an important issue given the potential differential reach of online versus more traditional methods of recruitment. More is known about recruitment to web-based interventions, with a number of studies [ 11 - 20 ] reporting that the use of online recruitment strategies such as Facebook, search engine advertisements, and promotion on relevant websites, are effective. However, only a few studies of web-based interventions [ 11 , 14 , 15 , 21 ] have compared the reach and costs of using online versus traditional methods of recruitment, with conflicting findings.…”

Stellenwert der Digitalisierung im urologischen Alltag

“…Villanti et al verglichen im Jahr 2013 die Auswirkung von Facebook-und telefonbasierter Studienrekrutierung im Rahmen einer Raucherentwöhnungsstudie [50]. Im Facebookarm ergab sich im Vergleich zum Telefonarm insgesamt eine höhere Rekrutierungsquote, eine vergleichbare Follow-Up-Quote und geringere Einschreibungskosten (27 US Dollar gegenüber 87 US Dollar).…”