Potential of Online Recruitment Among 15-25-Year Olds: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recruiting young people for health and intervention studies by traditional methods has become increasingly challenging. The widespread access to the internet may offer new strategies for online recruitment. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the feasibility of online recruitment for a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of Mindhelper, an online national youth mental health promotion service. The target group was young Danes aged 15-25 in need of mental health promotion. METHODS: Advertisements for recruitment were set up on Facebook and Instagram. Browser history was collected for a subsample of participants. We compared basic characteristics of participants who completed the baseline survey and those who did not, as well as of participants who completed the follow-up survey and those who were lost to follow-up. The significance of these differences was tested with the Pearson chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 560 Danes aged 15-25 were recruited within 1 month (ie, had completed the baseline survey). Among these participants, 356 (63.6%) were at risk of developing depression or stress. The average advertisement price per participant completing the baseline questionnaire was 31 DKK (approximately €4 [US $4.2]). The follow-up survey was sent to 545 participants, of whom 318 (58.3%) completed the survey. No statistically significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics of participants who completed the follow-up and those who were lost to follow-up in terms of gender (P=.45), age (P=.35), occupation (P=.17), cohabitation (P=.90), mental well-being (P=.26), mental illness (P=.44; impact of the illness, P=.05), or use of the internet when having a hard time (P=.92). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that it is feasible to recruit young Danes online for a large-scale randomized controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of Mindhelper. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04650906; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04650906.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.080 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".