Comparing Twitter and Online Panels for Survey Recruitment of E-Cigarette Users and Smokers.
Comparing Twitter and Online Panels for Survey Recruitment of E-Cigarette Users and Smokers.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/jmir.6326
复制
发表时间：
2016-11-15
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Hsieh Y
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Guillory J;Kim A;Murphy J;Bradfield B;Nonnemaker J;Hsieh Y
近年来，电子烟的普及率迅速上升，至少部分原因是Twitter上的营销和口碑讨论。鉴于电子烟的迅速普及，研究人员需要来自电子烟使用者和可能将电子烟视为戒烟工具的吸烟者的及时定量数据。Twitter为招募电子烟用户和使用Twitter的吸烟者提供了理想的平台。在线小组提供了接触这一人群的第二种方法，但他们被批评招募的年轻人太少，其中电子烟使用率最高。这项研究比较了通过Twitter招募电子烟用户和从未使用过电子烟的吸烟者与Qualtrics提供的在线小组成员的有效性，并探讨了招募的用户如何因人口统计学，电子烟使用和社交媒体使用而有所不同。参与者是曾经使用过电子烟的成年人（n=278;男性：57.6%，160/278;年龄：平均34.26，SD 14.16岁）和吸烟者（n=102;男性：38.2%，39/102;年龄：平均42.80，SD 14.16岁）。参与者通过在线小组（n=190）或使用针对电子烟用户的关键字（n=190）进行推广的推文招募。预测变量是人口统计学（年龄，性别，教育，种族/民族），电子烟使用（例如，过去30天的电子烟使用，每天的电子烟抽吸），社交媒体使用行为（例如，Twitter使用频率），以及Twitter与面板从调查启动到最终调查完成的天数。招募方法（Twitter，面板）是因变量。在整个样本中，通过Twitter招募参与者的速度比小组更快（发生率比=1.30，P=.02）。与年轻的成年电子烟使用者（18-24岁）相比，25 - 34岁（OR 0.01，95% CI 0.00-0.60，P= 0.03）和35 - 44岁（OR 0.01，95% CI 0.00-0.51，P= 0.02）的电子烟使用者更有可能通过Twitter而不是小组招募。35 - 44岁的吸烟者通过Twitter招募的可能性低于18 - 24岁的吸烟者（35-44岁：OR 0.03，95% CI 0.00-0.49，P= 0.01）。与每天报告较少吸烟的人相比，每天报告更多电子烟吸烟次数的电子烟使用者更有可能通过Twitter招募（OR 1.12，95% CI 1.05-1.20，P=.001）。Twitter使用量每增加一个单位，电子烟使用者通过Twitter招募的可能性是小组的9.55倍（95% CI 2.28-40.00，P=.002），吸烟者是4.91倍（95% CI 1.90-12.74，P=.001）。在招募电子烟用户和吸烟者方面，Twitter广告比在线小组更具时间效率。此外，Twitter为年轻人提供了访问机会，他们是电子烟和Twitter的重度用户。通过社交媒体和在线小组相结合的方式进行招聘，可以接触到更多样化的参与者。
E-cigarettes have rapidly increased in popularity in recent years, driven, at least in part, by marketing and word-of-mouth discussion on Twitter. Given the rapid proliferation of e-cigarettes, researchers need timely quantitative data from e-cigarette users and smokers who may see e-cigarettes as a cessation tool. Twitter provides an ideal platform for recruiting e-cigarette users and smokers who use Twitter. Online panels offer a second method of accessing this population, but they have been criticized for recruiting too few young adults, among whom e-cigarette use rates are highest. This study compares effectiveness of recruiting Twitter users who are e-cigarette users and smokers who have never used e-cigarettes via Twitter to online panelists provided by Qualtrics and explores how users recruited differ by demographics, e-cigarette use, and social media use. Participants were adults who had ever used e-cigarettes (n=278; male: 57.6%, 160/278; age: mean 34.26, SD 14.16 years) and smokers (n=102; male: 38.2%, 39/102; age: mean 42.80, SD 14.16 years) with public Twitter profiles. Participants were recruited via online panel (n=190) or promoted tweets using keyword targeting for e-cigarette users (n=190). Predictor variables were demographics (age, gender, education, race/ethnicity), e-cigarette use (eg, past 30-day e-cigarette use, e-cigarette puffs per day), social media use behaviors (eg, Twitter use frequency), and days to final survey completion from survey launch for Twitter versus panel. Recruitment method (Twitter, panel) was the dependent variable. Across the total sample, participants were recruited more quickly via Twitter (incidence rate ratio=1.30, P=.02) than panel. Compared with young adult e-cigarette users (age 18-24 years), e-cigarette users aged 25 to 34 years (OR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.60, P=.03) and 35 to 44 years (OR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.51, P=.02) were more likely to be recruited via Twitter than panel. Smokers aged 35 to 44 years were less likely than those aged 18 to 24 years to be recruited via Twitter than panel (35-44: OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00-0.49, P=.01). E-cigarette users who reported a greater number of e-cigarette puffs per day were more likely to be recruited via Twitter than panel compared to those who reported fewer puffs per day (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.20, P=.001). With each one-unit increase in Twitter usage, e-cigarette users were 9.55 times (95% CI 2.28-40.00, P=.002) and smokers were 4.91 times (95% CI 1.90-12.74, P=.001) as likely to be recruited via Twitter than panel. Twitter ads were more time efficient than an online panel in recruiting e-cigarette users and smokers. In addition, Twitter provided access to younger adults, who were heavier users of e-cigarettes and Twitter. Recruiting via social media and online panel in combination offered access to a more diverse population of participants.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Kim AE;Hopper T;Simpson S;Nonnemaker J;Lieberman AJ;Hansen H;Guillory J;Porter L
通讯作者：
Porter L
影响因子：
5.2
作者：
Huang J;Kornfield R;Szczypka G;Emery SL
通讯作者：
Emery SL
影响因子：
6.2
作者：
Borderud SP;Li Y;Burkhalter JE;Sheffer CE;Ostroff JS
通讯作者：
Ostroff JS
DOI：
10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00571.x
发表时间：
2008-02-01
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Heeren, Timothy;Edwards, Erika M.;Rosenbloom, David L.
通讯作者：
Rosenbloom, David L.
影响因子：
6
作者：
Brown, Jamie;Beard, Emma;West, Robert
通讯作者：
West, Robert