比较分析在临床环境之外招募新成人的方法。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING Nursing Research Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1097/NNR.0000000000000774
Alli Walsh, Dola Pathak, Emma C Schlegel
{"title":"比较分析在临床环境之外招募新成人的方法。","authors":"Alli Walsh, Dola Pathak, Emma C Schlegel","doi":"10.1097/NNR.0000000000000774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emerging adults are a hard-to-recruit population for health researchers, as many do not routinely access health care services and are best recruited outside clinical settings. Social media and research volunteer registries (e.g., ResearchMatch) offer great potential among this population, yet a comparison of these two recruitment methods has not been done.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare participant enrollment and completion rates, participant demographics, and recruitment costs between recruitment methods (social media advertisements compared to ResearchMatch) deployed with a sample of female-bodied emerging adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Female-bodied emerging adults were recruited from October to November 2022 via ResearchMatch and social media (Instagram and Snapchat) advertisements. This analysis involves a subset of recruitment data from a larger institutional review board-approved study. Enrollment and survey completion rates were calculated using the number of individuals contacted and survey completion data from Qualtrics. Chi-square and independent t-test analyses were used to compare demographic data. Advertisement data collected included total cost, cost per click, link clicks, and paid impressions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and forty-five emerging adults completed the survey, and 24 completed follow-up interviews. ResearchMatch and social media enrollment rates differed (58% and 39%, respectively). Survey completion rates for both methods were the same (~93%). Participants' ages and levels of education were significantly different. Social media resulted in recruitment of younger participants (18-21 years), and ResearchMatch garnered participants with a higher level of education. Differences in race were also significant, as social media recruited higher numbers of White participants. Lastly, the researcher-incurred cost per survey was $0 for ResearchMatch versus $13 for social media.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>While social media and ResearchMatch are both successful tools for research recruitment, each provides distinct benefits for recruiting specific populations. ResearchMatch offers a lower-cost option and access to an older emerging adult population with higher education, while social media provides access to a younger emerging adult population. This knowledge can be imperative for deciding which recruitment methods best fit research study needs. Future research should explore differences in race by recruitment method to highlight potential sampling biases or recruitment opportunities.</p>","PeriodicalId":49723,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparative Analysis of Recruitment Methods to Reach Emerging Adults Outside the Clinical Setting.\",\"authors\":\"Alli Walsh, Dola Pathak, Emma C Schlegel\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/NNR.0000000000000774\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emerging adults are a hard-to-recruit population for health researchers, as many do not routinely access health care services and are best recruited outside clinical settings. Social media and research volunteer registries (e.g., ResearchMatch) offer great potential among this population, yet a comparison of these two recruitment methods has not been done.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare participant enrollment and completion rates, participant demographics, and recruitment costs between recruitment methods (social media advertisements compared to ResearchMatch) deployed with a sample of female-bodied emerging adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Female-bodied emerging adults were recruited from October to November 2022 via ResearchMatch and social media (Instagram and Snapchat) advertisements. This analysis involves a subset of recruitment data from a larger institutional review board-approved study. Enrollment and survey completion rates were calculated using the number of individuals contacted and survey completion data from Qualtrics. Chi-square and independent t-test analyses were used to compare demographic data. Advertisement data collected included total cost, cost per click, link clicks, and paid impressions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and forty-five emerging adults completed the survey, and 24 completed follow-up interviews. ResearchMatch and social media enrollment rates differed (58% and 39%, respectively). Survey completion rates for both methods were the same (~93%). Participants' ages and levels of education were significantly different. Social media resulted in recruitment of younger participants (18-21 years), and ResearchMatch garnered participants with a higher level of education. Differences in race were also significant, as social media recruited higher numbers of White participants. Lastly, the researcher-incurred cost per survey was $0 for ResearchMatch versus $13 for social media.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>While social media and ResearchMatch are both successful tools for research recruitment, each provides distinct benefits for recruiting specific populations. ResearchMatch offers a lower-cost option and access to an older emerging adult population with higher education, while social media provides access to a younger emerging adult population. This knowledge can be imperative for deciding which recruitment methods best fit research study needs. Future research should explore differences in race by recruitment method to highlight potential sampling biases or recruitment opportunities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nursing Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nursing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000774\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000774","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:新兴成年人是健康研究人员难以招募的人群,因为他们中的很多人并不经常获得医疗保健服务,最好在临床环境之外招募。社交媒体和研究志愿者登记处(如 ResearchMatch)在这一人群中具有很大的潜力,但目前还没有对这两种招募方法进行过比较:目的:比较以女性为主体的新兴成年人为样本的招募方法(社交媒体广告与 ResearchMatch 相比)的参与者注册率和完成率、参与者人口统计学特征以及招募成本:2022 年 10 月至 11 月,通过 ResearchMatch 和社交媒体(Instagram 和 Snapchat)广告招募了女性身体的新兴成年人。本分析涉及一项经机构审查委员会批准的大型研究的招募数据子集。注册率和调查完成率是通过联系人数和 Qualtrics 的调查完成数据计算得出的。在比较人口统计学数据时使用了卡方和独立 t 检验分析。收集的广告数据包括总成本、每次点击成本、链接点击量和付费印象:245 名新兴成年人完成了调查,24 人完成了后续访谈。ResearchMatch 和社交媒体的注册率有所不同(分别为 58% 和 39%)。两种方法的调查完成率相同(约 93%)。参与者的年龄和教育水平有显著差异。社交媒体招募的参与者更年轻(18-21 岁),而 ResearchMatch 招募的参与者受教育程度更高。种族差异也很明显,社交媒体招募的白人参与者人数较多。最后,ResearchMatch 每次调查的研究人员成本为 0 美元,而社交媒体为 13 美元:虽然社交媒体和 ResearchMatch 都是成功的研究人员招募工具,但两者在招募特定人群时各有优势。ResearchMatch 提供了成本较低的选择,并能接触到受过高等教育的老年新兴成人群体,而社交媒体则能接触到年轻的新兴成人群体。这些知识对于决定哪种招募方法最适合研究需要至关重要。未来的研究应根据招募方法探讨种族差异,以突出潜在的抽样偏差或招募机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Comparative Analysis of Recruitment Methods to Reach Emerging Adults Outside the Clinical Setting.

Background: Emerging adults are a hard-to-recruit population for health researchers, as many do not routinely access health care services and are best recruited outside clinical settings. Social media and research volunteer registries (e.g., ResearchMatch) offer great potential among this population, yet a comparison of these two recruitment methods has not been done.

Objectives: To compare participant enrollment and completion rates, participant demographics, and recruitment costs between recruitment methods (social media advertisements compared to ResearchMatch) deployed with a sample of female-bodied emerging adults.

Methods: Female-bodied emerging adults were recruited from October to November 2022 via ResearchMatch and social media (Instagram and Snapchat) advertisements. This analysis involves a subset of recruitment data from a larger institutional review board-approved study. Enrollment and survey completion rates were calculated using the number of individuals contacted and survey completion data from Qualtrics. Chi-square and independent t-test analyses were used to compare demographic data. Advertisement data collected included total cost, cost per click, link clicks, and paid impressions.

Results: Two hundred and forty-five emerging adults completed the survey, and 24 completed follow-up interviews. ResearchMatch and social media enrollment rates differed (58% and 39%, respectively). Survey completion rates for both methods were the same (~93%). Participants' ages and levels of education were significantly different. Social media resulted in recruitment of younger participants (18-21 years), and ResearchMatch garnered participants with a higher level of education. Differences in race were also significant, as social media recruited higher numbers of White participants. Lastly, the researcher-incurred cost per survey was $0 for ResearchMatch versus $13 for social media.

Discussion: While social media and ResearchMatch are both successful tools for research recruitment, each provides distinct benefits for recruiting specific populations. ResearchMatch offers a lower-cost option and access to an older emerging adult population with higher education, while social media provides access to a younger emerging adult population. This knowledge can be imperative for deciding which recruitment methods best fit research study needs. Future research should explore differences in race by recruitment method to highlight potential sampling biases or recruitment opportunities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nursing Research
Nursing Research 医学-护理
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
102
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Research is a peer-reviewed journal celebrating over 60 years as the most sought-after nursing resource; it offers more depth, more detail, and more of what today''s nurses demand. Nursing Research covers key issues, including health promotion, human responses to illness, acute care nursing research, symptom management, cost-effectiveness, vulnerable populations, health services, and community-based nursing studies. Each issue highlights the latest research techniques, quantitative and qualitative studies, and new state-of-the-art methodological strategies, including information not yet found in textbooks. Expert commentaries and briefs are also included. In addition to 6 issues per year, Nursing Research from time to time publishes supplemental content not found anywhere else.
期刊最新文献
Preparing PhD Students for Tenure-Track Faculty Positions. Cognitive Interventions in Heart Failure Segue to Thoughts on Symptom Science in Nursing Research. Health Implications of Black Identity Among Latinos: A Call for Afro-Latina Representation in Maternal Child Health Research. In Search of Nursing Science. Nursing Science and the Law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1