Skip to main content

Table 2 Efficiency and cost of recruitment by recruitment method

From: The Home Observation of Periconceptional Exposures (HOPE) study, a prospective cohort: aims, design, recruitment and compliance

Recruitment Method

Total Screened

n(%)

Eligible Screened

n(%)

Enrolled

n(%)

Enrolled (indexe only)

n(%)

Cost

Investment per couple enrolled

Word of Mouth

 Spouse/Partner

313 (29.8)

254 (35.8)

149 (40.7)

NA

$0.00

$0.00

 Friend/Relative

207 (19.7)

135 (19.0)

88 (24.0)

71 (38.8)

$710.00d

$10.00

 Healthcare Professional

15 (1.4)

8 (1.1)

3 (0.8)

3 (1.6)

$0.00

$0.00

Web/Email

 Email or newsletter

43 (4.1)

25 (3.5)

8 (2.2)

8 (4.4)

$0.00

$0.00

 Facebook

167 (15.9)

95 (13.4)

25 (6.8)

24 (13.1)

$799.44

$33.31

 Webpage

28 (2.7)

13 (1.8)

5 (1.4)

5 (2.7)

$0.00

$0.00

 Google AdWords

2 (0.2)

0

0

0

$145.00

NA

Local news agency websitea

4 (0.4)

3 (0.4)

0

0

$1,000.00

NA

Televisionb

7 (0.7)

3 (0.4)

2 (0.5)

2 (1.1)

$0.00

$0.00

Magazine/Newspaperc

12 (1.1)

7 (1.0)

3 (0.8)

3 (1.6)

$706.00

$235.33

Posters/Flyers

246 (23.4)

166 (23.4)

83 (22.7)

67 (36.6)

$3,474.18

$51.85

Total

1052

709

366

183

$6,834.62

$37.35

  1. Eight screened respondents (0.8 % of total respondents) did not select a recruitment method and are not included in this table
  2. Abbreviations: NA not applicable
  3. aDeseret News
  4. bPrincipal Investigator interviewed on local news
  5. cUtah Family, Catalyst (local magazines)
  6. dCost from compensation given to active participants for referrals
  7. eThe index person is the initial member of the couple to complete a screening questionnaire