Virtual Versus In-Person Focus Groups: Comparison of Costs, Recruitment, and Participant Logistics

Background: Virtual focus groups—such as online chat and video groups—are increasingly promoted as qualitative research tools. Theoretically, virtual groups offer several advantages, including lower cost, faster recruitment, greater geographic diversity, enrollment of hard-to-reach populations, and reduced participant burden. However, no study has compared virtual and in-person focus groups on these metrics. Objective: To rigorously compare virtual and in-person focus groups on cost, recruitment, and participant logistics. We examined 3 focus group modes and instituted experimental controls to ensure a fair comparison. Methods: We conducted 6 1-hour focus groups in August 2014 using in-person (n=2), live chat (n=2), and video (n=2) modes with individuals who had type 2 diabetes (n=48 enrolled, n=39 completed). In planning groups, we solicited bids from 6 virtual platform vendors and 4 recruitment firms. We then selected 1 platform or facility per mode and a single recruitment firm across all modes. To minimize bias, the recruitment firm employed different recruiters by mode who were blinded to recruitment efforts for other modes. We tracked enrollment during a 2-week period. A single moderator conducted all groups using the same guide, which addressed the use of technology to communicate with health care providers. We conducted the groups at the same times of day on Monday to Wednesday during a single week. At the end of each group, participants completed a short survey. Results: Virtual focus groups offered minimal cost savings compared with in-person groups (US $ 2000 per chat group vs US $ 2576 per in-person group vs US $ 2,750 per video group). Although virtual groups did not incur travel costs, they often had higher management fees and miscellaneous expenses (eg, participant webcams). Recruitment timing did not differ by mode, but show rates were higher for in-person groups (94% [15/16] in-person vs 81% [13/16] video vs 69% [11/16] chat). Virtual group participants were more geographically diverse (but with significant clustering around major metropolitan areas) and more likely to be non-white, less educated, and less healthy. Internet usage was higher among virtual group participants, yet virtual groups still reached light Internet users. In terms of burden, chat groups were easiest to join and required the least preparation (chat = 13 minutes, video = 40 minutes, in-person = 78 minutes). Virtual group participants joined using laptop or desktop computers, and most virtual participants (82% [9/11] chat vs 62% [8/13] video) reported having no other people in their immediate vicinity. Conclusions: Virtual focus groups offer potential advantages for participant diversity and reaching less healthy populations. However, virtual groups do not appear to cost less or recruit participants faster than in-person groups. Further research on virtual group data quality and group dynamics is needed to fully understand their advantages and limitations.
Journal of Medical Internet Research

Comparison of Different Recruitment Methods for Sexual and Reproductive Health Research: Social Media–Based Versus Conventional Methods

Background: Prior research about the sexual and reproductive health of young women has relied mostly on self-reported survey studies. Thus, participant recruitment using Web-based methods can improve sexual and reproductive health research about cervical cancer prevention. In our prior study, we reported that Facebook is a promising way to reach young women for sexual and reproductive health research. However, it remains unknown whether Web-based or other conventional recruitment methods (ie, face-to-face or flyer distribution) yield comparable survey responses from similar participants. Objective: We conducted a survey to determine whether there was a difference in the sexual and reproductive health survey responses of young Japanese women based on recruitment methods: social media–based and conventional methods. Methods: From July 2012 to March 2013 (9 months), we invited women of ages 16-35 years in Kanagawa, Japan, to complete a Web-based questionnaire. They were recruited through either a social media–based (social networking site, SNS, group) or by conventional methods (conventional group). All participants enrolled were required to fill out and submit their responses through a Web-based questionnaire about their sexual and reproductive health for cervical cancer prevention. Results: Of the 243 participants, 52.3% (127/243) were recruited by SNS, whereas 47.7% (116/243) were recruited by conventional methods. We found no differences between recruitment methods in responses to behaviors and attitudes to sexual and reproductive health survey, although more participants from the conventional group (15%, 14/95) chose not to answer the age of first intercourse compared with those from the SNS group (5.2%, 6/116; P=.03). Conclusions: No differences were found between recruitment methods in the responses of young Japanese women to a Web–based sexual and reproductive health survey.
Journal of Medical Internet Research

Factors Associated With Dropout During Recruitment and Follow-Up Periods of a mHealth-Based Randomized Controlled Trial for Mobile.Net to Encourage Treatment Adherence for People With Serious Mental Health Problems

Background: Clinical trials are the gold standard of evidence-based practice. Still many papers inadequately report methodology in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), particularly for mHealth interventions for people with serious mental health problems. To ensure robust enough evidence, it is important to understand which study phases are the most vulnerable in the field of mental health care. Objective: We mapped the recruitment and the trial follow-up periods of participants to provide a picture of the dropout predictors from a mHealth-based trial. As an example, we used a mHealth-based multicenter RCT, titled “Mobile.Net,” targeted at people with serious mental health problems. Methods: Recruitment and follow-up processes of the Mobile.Net trial were monitored and analyzed. Recruitment outcomes were recorded as screened, eligible, consent not asked, refused, and enrolled. Patient engagement was recorded as follow-up outcomes: (1) attrition during short message service (SMS) text message intervention and (2) attrition during the 12-month follow-up period. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify which demographic factors were related to recruitment and retention. Results: We recruited 1139 patients during a 15-month period. Of 11,530 people screened, 36.31% (n=4186) were eligible. This eligible group tended to be significantly younger (mean 39.2, SD 13.2 years, P<.001) and more often women (2103/4181, 50.30%) than those who were not eligible (age: mean 43.7, SD 14.6 years; women: 3633/6514, 55.78%). At the point when potential participants were asked to give consent, a further 2278 refused. Those who refused were a little older (mean 40.2, SD 13.9 years) than those who agreed to participate (mean 38.3, SD 12.5 years; t1842=3.2, P<.001). We measured the outcomes after 12 months of the SMS text message intervention. Attrition from the SMS text message intervention was 4.8% (27/563). The patient dropout rate after 12 months was 0.36% (4/1123), as discovered from the register data. In all, 3.12% (35/1123) of the participants withdrew from the trial. However, dropout rates from the patient survey (either by paper or telephone interview) were 52.45% (589/1123) and 27.8% (155/558), respectively. Almost all participants (536/563, 95.2%) tolerated the intervention, but those who discontinued were more often women (21/27, 78%; P=.009). Finally, participants’ age (P<.001), gender (P<.001), vocational education (P=.04), and employment status (P<.001) seemed to predict their risk of dropping out from the postal survey. Conclusions: Patient recruitment and engagement in the 12-month follow-up conducted with a postal survey were the most vulnerable phases in the SMS text message-based trial. People with serious mental health problems may need extra support during the recruitment process and in engaging them in SMS text message-based trials to ensure robust enough evidence for mental health care. ClinicalTrial: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 27704027; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN27704027 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6oHcU2SFp) Journal of Medical Internet Research