Social Networking Versus Facebook Advertising to Recruit Survey Respondents: A Quasi-Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasingly, social contact and knowledge of other people's attitudes and behavior are mediated by online social media such as Facebook. The main research to which this recruitment study pertains investigates the influence of parents on adolescent alcohol consumption. Given the pervasiveness of online social media use, Facebook may be an effective means of recruitment and intervention delivery. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the efficacy of study recruitment via social networks versus paid advertising on Facebook. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental sequential trial with response rate as the outcome, and estimates of cost-effectiveness. The target population was parents of 13-17 year old children attending high schools in the Hunter region of New South Wales, Australia. Recruitment occurred via: method (1) social recruitment using Facebook, email-based, social networks, and media coverage followed by method (2) Facebook advertising. RESULTS: Using a range of online and other social network approaches only: method (1) 74 parents were recruited to complete a survey over eight months, costing AUD58.70 per completed survey. After Facebook advertising: method (2) 204 parents completed the survey over four weeks, costing AUD5.94 per completed survey. Participants were representative of the parents recruited from the region's schools using standard mail and email. CONCLUSIONS: Facebook advertising is a cost-effective means of recruiting parents, a group difficult to reach by other methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".