Cost-effectiveness of social media advertising as a recruitment tool: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Vladislav Tsaltskan, Roel Sanchez Baez, Gary S Firestein
Author Information
  1. Vladislav Tsaltskan: Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. ORCID
  2. Roel Sanchez Baez: Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
  3. Gary S Firestein: Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. ORCID

Abstract

Background: Recruitment of study participants is challenging and can incur significant costs. Social media advertising is a promising method for recruiting clinical studies and may improve cost efficiency by targeting populations likely to match a study's qualifications. Prior systematic reviews of social media as a recruitment tool have been favourable, however, there are no meta-analyses of its cost-effectiveness.
Methods: Studies evaluating recruitment costs through social media and non-social media methods were identified on MEDLINE and EMBASE. Articles were screened through a two-step process in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Cost data were extracted from selected articles and meta-analyzed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The primary outcome was the relative cost-effectiveness of social media compared to non-social media recruitment, defined as the odds ratio of recruiting a participant per US dollar spent. The secondary outcome was the cost-effectiveness of social media recruitment compared to other online recruitment methods only.
Results: In total, 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The odds ratio of recruiting a participant through social media advertising compared to non-social media methods per dollar spent was 1.97 [95% CI 1.24-3.00, = 0.004]. The odds ratio of recruiting a participant through social media compared to other online methods only was 1.66 [95% CI 1.02-2.72, = 0.04].
Conclusions: Social media advertising may be more cost-effective than other methods of recruitment, however, the magnitude of cost-effectiveness is highly variable between studies. There are limited data on newer social media platforms and on difficult-to-reach populations such as non-English speakers or older individuals.

Keywords

References

  1. Curr Opin Psychol. 2022 Jun;45:101293 [PMID: 35065352]
  2. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Sep 24;22(9):e16752 [PMID: 32969826]
  3. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021 Dec 1;7(12):e31657 [PMID: 34855613]
  4. Am J Mens Health. 2016 Mar;10(2):110-9 [PMID: 25389213]
  5. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 30;23(3):e25208 [PMID: 33783363]
  6. Internet Interv. 2016 Jan 06;4:1-10 [PMID: 30135786]
  7. Transl Behav Med. 2015 Sep;5(3):254-9 [PMID: 26327930]
  8. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2014 Jun;23(2):184-91 [PMID: 24615785]
  9. Drug Inf J. 2012 Jul;46(4):472-478 [PMID: 23990689]
  10. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Nov 7;18(11):e286 [PMID: 27821383]
  11. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 14;22(8):e19389 [PMID: 32795986]
  12. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008 Nov;29(6):847-61 [PMID: 18721901]
  13. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Sep 21;18(9):e250 [PMID: 27655184]
  14. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Nov 08;20(11):e290 [PMID: 30409765]
  15. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Feb 12;15(2):e31 [PMID: 23403043]
  16. Clin Trials. 2010 Aug;7(4):312-21 [PMID: 20595245]
  17. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71 [PMID: 33782057]
  18. Health Soc Work. 2013 Feb;38(1):29-38 [PMID: 23539894]
  19. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Nov 12;21(11):e14911 [PMID: 31714253]
  20. J Adolesc Health. 2021 Aug;69(2):349-353 [PMID: 33632643]
  21. J Adolesc Health. 2021 Oct;69(4):668-671 [PMID: 33867231]
  22. Genet Med. 2019 Oct;21(10):2371-2380 [PMID: 30930462]
  23. Am J Clin Nutr. 2022 Feb 9;115(2):514-533 [PMID: 34669955]
  24. BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 2;7(6):e016198 [PMID: 28674144]
  25. Contemp Clin Trials. 2021 Apr;103:106314 [PMID: 33571687]
  26. Clin Trials. 2019 Oct;16(5):476-480 [PMID: 31055949]
  27. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Jul 28;20(1):201 [PMID: 32723388]
  28. J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Apr;17(2):553-60 [PMID: 24563138]
  29. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Dec;80:8-15 [PMID: 27498376]
  30. J Adolesc Health. 2016 Dec;59(6):662-667 [PMID: 27663927]
  31. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Sep 04;106(9): [PMID: 25190726]
  32. Clin Trials. 2020 Dec;17(6):664-674 [PMID: 32627589]
  33. Clin Trials. 2022 Jun;19(3):239-250 [PMID: 35232299]
  34. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jun 15;18(6):e117 [PMID: 27306780]
  35. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Nov 12;23(11):e21142 [PMID: 34587586]
  36. J Parkinsons Dis. 2020;10(2):665-675 [PMID: 32250321]
  37. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0243562 [PMID: 33382745]
  38. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 26;22(10):e22810 [PMID: 33104015]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0mediasocialrecruitmentmethodsadvertisingrecruitingcost-effectivenesscompared1Socialstudiessystematicnon-socialoddsratioparticipantmeta-analysiscostsmethodmaycostpopulationshoweverdataoutcomeperdollarspentonline[95%CI=0reviewBackground:Recruitmentstudyparticipantschallengingcanincursignificantpromisingclinicalimproveefficiencytargetinglikelymatchstudy'squalificationsPriorreviewstoolfavourablemeta-analysesMethods:StudiesevaluatingidentifiedMEDLINEEMBASEArticlesscreenedtwo-stepprocessaccordancePRISMAguidelinesCostextractedselectedarticlesmeta-analyzedusingMantel-HaenszelprimaryrelativedefinedUSsecondaryonlyResults:total23included9724-300004]6602-27204]Conclusions:cost-effectivemagnitudehighlyvariablelimitednewerplatformsdifficult-to-reachnon-EnglishspeakersolderindividualsCost-effectivenesstool:

Similar Articles

Cited By