This paper examines three primary strategies for recruiting participants in clinical trials and research studies: financial compensation through general advertising, online recruitment via health-specific websites and forums, and community-based recruitment. Drawing on studies from experimental economics, public health, and clinical trial literature, the paper evaluates the effectiveness, limitations, and ethical considerations of each approach. It argues that no single strategy is universally optimal and that researchers should tailor their recruitment method to the nature of their study, the target population, and the practical constraints of reaching underrepresented groups.
One of the most common recruitment strategies when soliciting individuals to participate in experiments is offering financial compensation through general advertisements on the web, radio, or in other publications. Financial compensation encourages individuals to participate in clinical trials and other types of research studies because it compensates them for lost job income, as well as for any possible risks that might be posed by the experiment. For individuals who are between jobs, or for college students, money can be a significant motivator to encourage participation.
One experiment specifically comparing the response rates of invitations emphasizing pecuniary versus non-pecuniary benefits of participation found that the former resulted in a higher response rate, and the strength of this treatment effect was comparable across groups defined by gender and academic major (Krawczyk 2011: 482). However, one potentially negative side effect of this technique is that once subjects are recruited via methods that emphasize financial compensation, they tend to expect financial compensation for all components of the research. In a follow-up test conducted approximately one year later, it was found that individuals recruited by invitations emphasizing monetary benefits were less willing to make an effort to participate in an unpaid survey (Krawczyk 2011: 482).
General advertisements offering financial compensation can be useful in recruiting test subjects for initial phases of clinical trials — when healthy participants are needed, or when the subject of the research study is fairly general in nature, such as testing a drug intended for use by a large segment of the population.
Other forms of recruitment include advertising for participant volunteers on websites or other content platforms that specifically serve the needs of individuals with particular diseases or conditions. This form of recruitment is most advantageous when the drug or treatment is designed for use by a fairly narrow segment of the population. Study-specific subject recruitment sites are growing in popularity, with 68,458 clinical trials listed with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2009.
The PEW Internet Health Study reports the following: eight in ten Internet users go online for health information; 113 million consumers have searched for health and wellness information; and 73 percent of chronic disease sufferers have searched the Internet for information about their condition (Geurts 2009: 17). The propensity of individuals — especially those with chronic conditions — to seek health information online makes recruitment within specialist forums both cost-effective and well-targeted. However, the downside is that not all target populations are represented online. For diseases that primarily affect residents of the developing world or those living in poverty, this can be an extremely problematic strategy. Even when recruits are found, they will not necessarily be representative of the broader population.
"Trust-building method for underrepresented communities"
"Tailoring recruitment to study type and population"
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.