Cited by 326Social Media in Health EducationSurvey Methodology and NonresponseEthics in Clinical Research

Recruiting for health, medical or psychosocial research using Facebook: Systematic review

Open access
Thornton, Louise, Batterham, Philip J., Fassnacht, Daniel B., Kay-Lambkin, Frances, Calear, Alison L., Hunt, Sally·2016·Internet Interventions

Abstract

Recruiting participants is a challenge for many health, medical and psychosocial research projects. One tool more frequently being used to improve recruitment is the social networking website Facebook. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that have used Facebook to recruit participants of all ages, to any psychosocial, health or medical research. 110 unique studies that used Facebook as a recruitment source were included in the review. The majority of studies used a cross-sectional design (80%) and addressed a physical health or disease issue (57%). Half (49%) of the included studies reported specific details of the Facebook recruitment process. Researchers paid between $1.36 and $110 per completing participants (Mean = $17.48, SD = $23.06). Among studies that examined the representativeness of their sample, the majority concluded (86%) their Facebook-recruited samples were similarly representative of samples recruited via traditional methods. These results indicate that Facebook is an effective and cost-efficient recruitment method. Researchers should consider their target group, advertisement wording, offering incentives and no-cost methods of recruitment when considering Facebook as a recruitment source. It is hoped this review will assist researchers to make decisions regarding the use of Facebook as a recruitment tool in future research. • Health, medical and psychosocial research recruiting participants of all ages via Facebook is reviewed. • Results suggest Facebook is an effective and cost efficient recruitment method. • Results suggest Facebook can be used to obtain samples similarly representative to samples recruited via traditional methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.invent.2016.02.001

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Samples recruited by Facebook have been found to present similar representativeness to convention methods in achieving age and gender distribution and are usually less costly.

    “Samples recruited by Facebook have been found to present similar representativeness to convention methods in achieving age and gender distribution and are usually less costly [53].”

    From A mobile health intervention (LifeBuoy App) to help young people manage suicidal thoughts: protocol for a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Results (Recruitment bias; page unavailable) report that 86% of studies comparing methods found Facebook-recruited samples similarly representative to traditionally recruited samples. The Discussion (page unavailable) says Facebook recruitment tended to cost less per participant. But the Results also identify age and gender as frequently imbalanced characteristics, so the paper does not establish comparable age and gender distributions specifically. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 115 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thornton, L., Batterham, P. J., Fassnacht, D. B., Kay-Lambkin, F., Calear, A. L., & Hunt, S.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Venue
Internet Interventions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
4
Pages
72-81
ISSN
2214-7829 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2282737262
Cited by
326
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 2
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Internet Interventions (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of New South Wales
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
Facebook, participant recruitment, social networking sites, online recruitment, recruitment incentives, sample representativeness, health research, medical research, psychosocial research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review