Recruiting Young People for Digital Mental Health Research: Lessons From an AI-Driven Adaptive Trial.

Background: With increasing adoption of remote clinical trials in digital mental health, identifying cost-effective and time-efficient recruitment methodologies is crucial for the success of such trials. Evidence on whether web-based recruitment methods are more effective than traditional methods such as newspapers, media, or flyers is inconsistent. Here we present insights from our experience recruiting tertiary education students for a digital mental health artificial intelligence-driven adaptive trial-Vibe Up.

Objective: We evaluated the effectiveness of recruitment via Facebook and Instagram compared to traditional methods for a treatment trial and compared different recruitment methods' retention rates. With recruitment coinciding with COVID-19 lockdowns across Australia, we also compared the cost-effectiveness of social media recruitment during and after lockdowns.

Methods: Recruitment was completed for 2 pilot trials and 6 minitrials from June 2021 to May 2022. To recruit participants, paid social media advertising on Facebook and Instagram was used, alongside mailing lists of university networks and student organizations or services, media releases, announcements during classes and events, study posters or flyers on university campuses, and health professional networks. Recruitment data, including engagement metrics collected by Meta (Facebook and Instagram), advertising costs, and Qualtrics data on recruitment methods and survey completion rates, were analyzed using RStudio with R (version 3.6.3; R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results: In total, 1314 eligible participants (aged 22.79, SD 4.71 years; 1079, 82.1% female) were recruited to 2 pilot trials and 6 minitrials. The vast majority were recruited via Facebook and Instagram advertising (n=1203; 92%). Pairwise comparisons revealed that the lead institution's website was more effective in recruiting eligible participants than Facebook (z=3.47; P=.003) and Instagram (z=4.23; P<.001). No differences were found between recruitment methods in retaining participants at baseline, at midpoint, and at study completion. Wilcoxon tests found significant differences between lockdown (pilot 1 and pilot 2) and postlockdown (minitrials 1-6) on costs incurred per link click (lockdown: median Aus $0.35 [US $0.22], IQR Aus $0.27-$0.47 [US $0.17-$0.29]; postlockdown: median Aus $1.00 [US $0.62], IQR Aus $0.70-$1.47 [US $0.44-$0.92]; W=9087; P<.001) and the amount spent per hour to reach the target sample size (lockdown: median Aus $4.75 [US $2.95], IQR Aus $1.94-6.34 [US $1.22-$3.97]; postlockdown: median Aus $13.29 [US $8.26], IQR Aus $4.70-25.31 [US $2.95-$15.87]; W=16044; P<.001).

Conclusions: Social media advertising via Facebook and Instagram was the most successful strategy for recruiting distressed tertiary students into this artificial intelligence-driven adaptive trial, providing evidence for the use of this recruitment method for this type of trial in digital mental health research. No recruitment method stood out in terms of participant retention. Perhaps a reflection of the added distress experienced by young people, social media recruitment during the COVID-19 lockdown period was more cost-effective.

Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001092886; https://tinyurl.com/39f2pdmd; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001223820; https://tinyurl.com/bdhkvucv.