| Title |
Recruiting for research studies using online public advertisements examples from research in affective disorders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s90941 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Toby Wise, Danilo Arnone, Lindsey Marwood, Roland Zahn, Karen E Lythe, Allan H Young |
| Abstract |
Successful recruitment is vital for any research study. Difficulties in recruitment are not uncommon and can have important implications. This is particularly relevant to research conducted in affective disorders due to the nature of the conditions and the clinical services that serve these patients. Recently, online public advertisements have become more generally accessible and may provide an effective way to recruit patient populations. However, there is paucity of evidence on their viability as a method of recruiting patients into studies of disease mechanisms in these disorders. Public advertisement methods can be useful when researchers require specific populations, such as those not receiving pharmacological treatment. This work describes our experience in successfully recruiting participants into neuroimaging research studies in affective disorders using online public advertisements. Results suggest that these online public advertisements are an effective method for successfully recruiting participants with affective disorders into research studies, particularly for research focusing on disease mechanisms in specific populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 67 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 21 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#8,262,107
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,087
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,980
of 406,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#40
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 406,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.