Powell Joseph, Webster Kyle, Efionayi Siobhan, Engelman Timothy, Tang W H Wilson, Xiao Li P
Department of Biochemistry, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Center for RNA Science and Therapeutics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2025 Apr 10;9(1):e106. doi: 10.1017/cts.2025.61. eCollection 2025.
Insufficient sample sizes threatened the fidelity of the primary research trials. Even if the research group recruits a sufficient sample size, the sample may lack diversity, reducing the generalizability of the results of the study. Evaluating the effectiveness of online advertising platforms (e.g., Facebook & Google Ads) versus traditional recruitment methods (e.g., flyers, clinical participation) is essential.
Patients were recruited through email, electronic direct message, paper advertisements, and word-of-mouth advertisement (traditional) or through Google Ads and Facebook Ads (advertising) for a longitudinal study on monitoring COVID-19 using wearable devices. Participants were asked to wear a smart watch-like wearable device for ∼ 24 hours per day and complete daily surveys.
The initiation conversion rate (ICR, impressions to pre-screen ratio) was better for traditional recruitment (24.14) than for Google Ads, 28.47 ([0.80, 0.88]; p << 0.001). The consent conversion rate (CCR, impressions to consent ratio) was also higher for traditional recruitment (66.54) than for Google Ads, 2961.20 ([0.015, 0.030]; p << 0.001). Participants recruited through recommendations or by paper flier were more likely to participate initially (Χ = 23.65; p < 0.005). Clinical recruitment led to more self-reporting white participants, while other methods yielded great diversity (Χ = 231.47; p << 0.001).
While Google Ads target users based on keywords, they do not necessarily improve participation. However, our findings are based on a single study with specific recruitment strategies and participant demographics. Further research is needed to assess the generalizability of these findings across different study designs and populations.
样本量不足威胁到了主要研究试验的准确性。即使研究团队招募到了足够的样本量，样本可能也缺乏多样性，从而降低了研究结果的普遍性。评估在线广告平台（如脸书和谷歌广告）与传统招募方法（如传单、临床参与）的有效性至关重要。
通过电子邮件、电子直邮、纸质广告和口碑广告（传统方式）或通过谷歌广告和脸书广告（广告方式）招募患者，进行一项关于使用可穿戴设备监测新冠病毒的纵向研究。参与者被要求每天佩戴类似智能手表的可穿戴设备约24小时，并完成每日调查。
传统招募方式的起始转化率（ICR，展示量与预筛选比例）为24.14，优于谷歌广告的28.47（[0.80, 0.88]；p << 0.001）。传统招募方式的同意转化率（CCR，展示量与同意比例）也高于谷歌广告，分别为66.54和2961.20（[0.015, 0.030]；p << 0.001）。通过推荐或纸质传单招募的参与者最初更有可能参与（Χ = 23.65；p < 0.005）。临床招募导致更多自我报告为白人的参与者，而其他方法则产生了更大的多样性（Χ = 231.47；p << 0.001）。
虽然谷歌广告根据关键词定位用户，但它们不一定能提高参与度。然而，我们的研究结果基于一项采用特定招募策略和参与者人口统计学特征的单一研究。需要进一步研究以评估这些结果在不同研究设计和人群中的普遍性。
