Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Diversifying racial and ethnic participation in clinical research contributes to the generalizability of findings. Yet minority populations remain underrepresented, presenting challenges for studies targeting diverse undergraduate student populations. The researchers of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) explored a recruitment methodology including peer engagement. This article reports on the methodology and outcomes of a peer-to-peer (“Student Ambassador”) recruitment strategy alongside other approaches (email, digital advertising). To understand (1) how peer engagement can diversify student recruitment efforts, the researchers examined descriptive statistics and responses from the baseline and follow-up surveys of the RCT. To understand (2) how Student Ambassadors experienced engagement, the researchers convened a focus group. While a causal relationship is not asserted, we found that study participation approximately represented the student population in terms of ethnic and racial background. Among recruitment approaches, some appeared better aligned with individual ethnic and racial groups. Nine percent of participants reported hearing about the study from peer-to-peer activities (Ambassador engagement, social media, or word-of-mouth), making such approaches a valuable reinforcement of other methods. The diverse team of Student Ambassadors reported job satisfaction, citing interactivity and relatability as success factors. We conclude that diversifying recruitment methods in alignment with target populations may enhance research results. In addition, peer-to-peer methods can expose underrepresented groups to the research process.

Keywords

peer engagement/peer-to-peer recruitment strategies undergraduate student recruitment randomized controlled trial focus group diversity in research participation

Introduction

In clinical research, recruiting a sample that reflects the racial and ethnic composition of the target population supports the generalizability of results (George et al., 2014). Yet such diversity is not always achieved, resulting in recommendations that are not broadly applicable and can lead to incorrect conclusions when findings are transferred indiscriminately to minority populations (Thakur et al., 2021). Researchers of college populations seek strategies for study recruitment, including community involvement, to overcome participation gaps among minorities (Leissa et al., 2021). This paper reports the findings of a “Student Ambassador” recruitment effort to increase and diversify participation in a research study meant to improve academic outcomes of a diverse student population.

For a randomized controlled trial (RCT), researchers at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) employed a diverse peer-to-peer engagement team to recruit participants into a study focusing on student travel (see Supplemental Material; Merlin et al., 2022). In combination with traditional strategies such as email and digital advertising, the peer-to-peer engagement approach was meant to increase and diversify participation representative of the student population. This paper reports the outcomes of the recruitment efforts based on the following research questions: 1) How can incorporating peer-to-peer engagement (“Student Ambassadors”) enhance research in terms of diversity of participation? and 2) How do Student Ambassadors experience the engagement? After reviewing relevant literature, this paper reviews the data and methodology, then describes the recruitment strategies and activities. The current study observes the process and outcomes of peer engagement recruitment as measured by a survey question in the RCT and a focus group. The results indicate the diversity of respondents compared with overall population, the relative effectiveness of various marketing approaches, as well as the benefits and challenges reported by the Student Ambassadors.

Study Population

The Kresge Foundation provided funding for a randomized controlled trial to investigate “Improving the Southeast Florida Transit Ecosystem for Students” with the goal of improving academic outcomes especially for lower income, minority, and local students at institutions serving diverse populations. Student population demographics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographics of Institutions in a Southeast Florida RCT, Academic Year 2017-2018.

	Lower income% Pell recipients2017–2018	Minority% students of color 2017-2018	Local% Local students2017–2018
Broward college (BC)	48%	67%	94%
Florida Atlantic university (FAU)	43%	47%	72%
Palm beach state college (PBSC)	40%	47%	72%

The project required that at least one participating higher education institution have a substantial percentage (>30%) of low-income students (defined as Pell recipients) and/or students of color, as well as primarily educating students from their home city. FAU qualified as a Minority Serving Institution, and a less affluent one, as evidenced by the percentage of Pell Grant recipients. The Kresge Grant intended to fund research efforts to better serve these populations. A clustered, randomized controlled trial (cRCT or RCT) was conducted to investigate how travel behaviors, health, and academic outcomes may be influenced by the introduction of a travel app intervention (Merlin et al., 2022). The study population was commuting students (i.e., living off-campus) from three institutions: Florida Atlantic University (FAU), Broward College (BC), and Palm Beach State College (PBSC) located in southeast Florida. An online Qualtrics survey collected data on travel behavior, health, and demographics. The institutions supplied additional data on academic outcomes. Since the funders specified educational institutions with populations of diverse race, ethnicity, and income level, the researchers sought ways to increase and diversify the research sample to match the population and increase the generalizability of results.

Literature Review

Researchers normally seek an appropriately large and diverse sample size. Diversifying racial and ethnic minority participation in clinical research is well recognized as integral to the generalizability of research findings, equitable provision of health services, and the accuracy of subgroup analysis (Davis et al., 1985; Heiat et al., 2002; Hussain-Gambles et al., 2004; Miranda et al., 2003; Satcher, 2001; Yancey et al., 2006). Further, researchers seek to increase minority groups’ enrollment and retention, for example, in public health studies (Yancey et al., 2006). Notably, in understanding travel behavior for transportation planning, including diverse populations can reveal differences in mode usage and preference. For example, a set of interviews and a national survey in the United States indicated that lower-income travelers may use transportation options such as ride-hail differently from other groups (Brown et al., 2022). Therefore, research methodologies that engage with a spectrum of potential transport users may support more inclusive transport planning (Porter & Dungey, 2021).

Although researchers may strive to attract a diverse sample, study participants’ mistrust and lack of information, time, or other resources present barriers to the recruitment of minority populations (Clark et al., 2019; George et al., 2014). As an ethical concern in the social sciences, Deaton (2020, p. 21) notes “Even in the US, nearly all RCTs on the welfare system are RCTs done by better-heeled, better-educated and paler people on lower income, less-educated and darker people” (italics in original). In addition, trust has been cited as a factor in recruiting Black adults to participate in genetic research (Connor et al., 2022).

Moreover, researchers face challenges due to resource constraints in relation to sample size goals. Meeting sample size requirements is often considered an indicator of the quality of the survey (Hox and De Leeuw, 1994). Online surveys, which require little or no interaction between participants and researchers, are an attractive alternative to other methods, often requiring fewer resources for data collection and analysis, and are particularly time and cost-efficient for populations over 300 (Wu et al., 2022). Yet researchers may encounter varying levels of success in recruiting for online studies. In their meta-analysis synthesizing response rates of online versus mail surveys, Shih and Fan (2008) reported rates 11 percent lower for online surveys. In a meta-analysis of 110 studies from seven countries,¹ Daikeler et al. (2022) reported a 36 percent average response rate for online surveys versus a 48 percent rate for other modes. Country-specific factors—political and demographic, economic, technological, and socio-cultural—accounted for variations among international online response rates (Daikeler et al., 2022).

An additional recruitment challenge emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey fatigue resulted in lower response rates. For example, neuroscience studies showed a reduction in response rates by 30 percent compared with pre-pandemic levels as the number of studies rose steeply (De Koning et al., 2021). Undergraduate college students seemed particularly affected by survey fatigue, making the task of study recruitment formidable (Fass-Holmes, 2022). Attracting a sufficiently diverse sample may carry additional investments of time and resources (George et al., 2014).

Strategies that may improve response rates are personalized invitations, selectivity, using simple, precise language, pre-notifications, reminders, deadlines, and incentives; whereas factors that negatively impact response rates are survey length, poor visual presentation, and poor internet connectivity as well as social factors including survey fatigue leading to lower rates worldwide (De Koning et al., 2021, p. 5; Fan & Yan, 2010). Topic salience and topic area may play a role (Fan & Yan, 2010; Wu et al., 2022). For learning-related topics, such as special education and professional development, survey rates may top 60 percent (Wu et al., 2022). For postal questionnaires, personalized address, enclosing $2 cash, and repeated follow-up mailing proved effective in generating a higher response rate for a public health study (Smith et al., 2019). Yet in the online setting, incentives to participate had either a negative correlation or no statistical significance (Burgard et al., 2020; Neal et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2022). Therefore, additional recruitment and retention strategies may be needed to meet study objectives, particularly for RCTs that use online questionnaires.

Diverse strategies may serve the goals of diverse recruitment. Digital recruitment techniques have been utilized in several health studies. In a study of Parkinson’s disease, digital marketing was demonstrated to increase, accelerate, and diversify recruitment by tailoring advertising to target cohort characteristics (Dobkin et al., 2020). A web-based, Respondent-Driven Sampling (webRDS) strategy proved useful for recruiting young adults, ages 18-24, to a survey on alcohol and other drug use (Bauermeister et al., 2012). However, person-to-person recruitment by the practitioner emerged as the most effective in primary care research, as found in a meta-study of sixty-six articles (Ngune et al., 2012). Ellard-Gray et al. (2015) recommends building rapport with potential participants before attempting to recruit. This process requires becoming immersed in the community, which may be facilitated by representatives of the population of interest. Project staff involvement in the community may play a greater role in the retention of than the recruitment of African Americans and Latinos (Yancey et al., 2006).

A complex picture emerges in the racial and ethnic matching of study recruiters and participants, suggesting that trained recruiters may achieve equal or better recruitment results than culturally matched recruiters (Yancey et al., 2006). These factors may be mitigated by the ethnicity of project leadership—not just recruiters—as well as the researchers’ and institution’s reputation in the community (Yancey et al., 2006).

Despite barriers to recruitment such as lack of trust, minority groups may demonstrate willingness to participate due to research subject matter, benefits of participation, or altruism/involvement of family or community (George et al., 2014). For example, historic mistreatment of minority communities and power asymmetries led researchers to seek a culturally responsive strategy of RCT recruitment for a weight loss intervention study—community involvement of the target community college population served as the basis for recruiting Black young adults (Leissa et al., 2021). Community engagement is a vital part of the recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups in clinical trials and relates to issues of trust (Kelsey et al., 2022; Yancey et al., 2006).

Several literature reviews identified peer or known recruiters as a strategy to overcome “fear of authority” in socially disadvantaged groups (Bonevski et al., 2014, p. 15). Yet peer recruitment has limitations. Peer-to-peer recruiting can lead to informal peer education, precipitating an intervention effect (Tiffany, 2006). Peers exert peer pressure to participate (Khatamian Far, 2018). Peer recruitment practices, ranging from single instances of peer pressure to repeated contact, may occasionally exceed ethical limits (Mosher et al., 2015). Accompanying risk to participants ranges from minimal to high, as some financially motivated recruiters engage in threats, arguments, or even violence (Mosher et al., 2015). Financial motivation based on participation rates can be associated with risks of cheating the system (Helms et al., 2021). Depending on topic area, peer recruitment may result in participants’ self-consciousness or fear of sanctioning (Broyles et al., 2011). Peer recruitment can take the form of respondent driven sampling (RDS), in which research participants are encouraged to recruit peers—a strategy especially useful in hard-to-reach populations (Arayasirikul et al., 2015). RDS may provide varying effectiveness considering the inclusion criteria of a randomized controlled trial.

The peer-to-peer mechanism in research settings may be a complex one, necessitating an examination of what constitutes ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ status in a peer group, a fluid concept at best (Ryan et al., 2011). Multiple avenues of social relationship may be available between researchers and the researched, and these commonalities may not be easily predicted (Fawcett & Hearn, 2004; Ryan & Golden, 2006). While race and ethnicity have often featured in debates about matching participants and researchers, gender may play a more significant role (Ryan et al., 2011; Song & Parker, 1995). Factors such as age, accent, or places one has lived may mediate connections; yet “in practice, we often do not know what it is that makes a difference” (Brownlie, 2009, p. 708).

Learnings from the above research inspired the current research team to use a combination of traditional methods (email, digital advertising, flyers) as well as an innovative peer-to-peer undergraduate recruitment strategy, to study how these strategies compare. The Student Ambassadors approach aimed to increase and diversify participation in the larger research project on student travel behavior (Merlin et al., 2022). This ancillary project asks, how can incorporating peer-to-peer engagement enhance research in terms of diversity of participation? How do Student Ambassadors experience the engagement?

Data and Methodology

To understand (1) how student-led engagement can enhance recruitment efforts and increase generalizability, the researchers examined descriptive statistics from the baseline and follow-up surveys of the RCT. Participants in the RCT who completed the survey reported how they heard about the study. The results of this question revealed the perceived effectiveness of the Ambassadors’ efforts compared with other recruitment methods. In compliance with our protocol, approved by the FAU Institutional Research Board (IRB), the email addresses of study participants were used to link to demographic data provided by the academic institutions. In this way, we ascertained the diversity of participants and the effectiveness of marketing strategies by racial/ethnic group compared with the overall population. Additionally, results from a focus group showed (2) how Student Ambassadors experienced the engagement efforts. The focus group with the Improve Your Commute (IYC) Ambassadors showed how the student ambassadors perceived their contribution and level of effectiveness.

Recruitment Strategies

This section provides details of study marketing methods: emails, text messaging, and on-campus advertising augmented by the peer-to-peer approach.

Traditional Recruitment and Retention Strategies

A marketing campaign with the tagline “Improve Your Commute” brought awareness of the study across multiple campuses. The four southeast Florida campuses were in (1) Boca Raton: main campus for Florida Atlantic University (FAU) and secondary campus for Palm Beach State College (PBSC); (2) Fort Lauderdale: satellite campus for Broward College (BC) and FAU; (3) Davie: main campus of BC and satellite campus for FAU; and (4) Lake Worth: main campus of PBSC.

The main strategy for study recruitment was widespread electronic distribution via email. The colleges provided lists of students who were enrolled as of September 1, 2021, lived off-campus, and affiliated with one of the above campuses. Emails were sent from different sources: FAU Office of the President, Student Commuting Services, Office of First Generation Students, the Department of Parking and Transportation, and from the survey management platform, Qualtrics. The email messaging was augmented by advertising in college newsletters, the institutions’ learning management system (Canvas), electronic billboards, and social media. A total of 11 emails were sent to FAU students, two emails before the recruitment timeframe and nine more during the six-week recruitment window from February to mid-March 2022. Messaging included variations on the following, and the look and feel of the campaign graphics can be seen at the link below.

Improve Your Commute Project

January 24 – February 28

Join students across South Florida in a study to help improve your commute. Complete confidential survey questions to help us develop greener, healthier, more affordable campus transportation options. Learn more at www.fau.edu/improveyourcommute

Students who visited the survey website were asked to provide informed consent. If they consented, they were asked about the four exclusion criteria: living off-campus, own a smartphone (to download the app), planning to study at current institution for at least a year. Those who affirmed all the questions were enrolled in the study.

Email and text messaging supported retention. Once students enrolled in the study and provided a mobile phone number, those randomized to the App group were asked to download the app. All students received email and text messages asking them to complete the survey if incomplete and to complete the follow-up survey.

A sample text for the treatment group: Congrats! You have been selected to download the Improve Your Commute (U-RIDE) app < link to download the app>

Paper-based marketing appeared in the form of posters, table tents and flyers in key locations—bus stops, the library and dining halls, and advising and student services offices. While lottery-based incentives were considered, per Florida statute (849.09), raffles, drawing, or lotteries could not be used. Gift cards were also considered. However, the research team decided that the total incentives budget might be better leveraged to connect with research participants in a more meaningful way. Therefore, a peer-to-peer campaign was launched as an innovative alternative to a traditional monetary or lottery incentive for study participation.

The IYC Ambassadors Approach

The peer-to-peer approach depended on hiring students to form the Improve Your Commute (IYC) Ambassadors team. One of the researchers, assisted by a graduate research assistant, led the candidate interview and selection process. Ambassadors were recruited on online jobs boards provided by the three institutions. Role description for IYC Ambassadors:

We are hiring students for a 6-week, in-person position. Improve Your Commute (IYC) Student Ambassadors will be responsible for recruiting as many students as possible across four campuses (FAU & PBSC Boca Raton, BC & FAU Davie, BC & FAU Fort Lauderdale, & PBSC Lake Worth) to sign up for the #ImproveYourCommute study. Ambassadors will communicate a clear message about the study’s intent and ask them to participate. Ambassadors will engage with students at indoor and outdoor strategic locations at social nodes of each campus. Ambassadors must be energetic, creative, team players, leadership-oriented and show a unique interest or passion in transportation or creating a greener, healthier community. [LINK to Application]

Applicants completed a Google form application based on the job description and requirements (see Supplemental Material, Appendix B: Ambassador Job Announcement), and a member of the research team in collaboration with the graduate research assistant invited the strongest candidates to a Zoom interview. Experience working with college students or young adults was preferred, as well as any experience in outreach campaigns. An interview protocol was used. During the interviews, applicants were asked to describe a situation in which they overcame a difficulty, a situation in which they worked as a team, and a situation in which they initiated contact with others. Students were hired based on their verbal communication skills, leadership experience and participation in campus organizations, and willingness to engage with other students, primarily at in-person events and via social media. We sought ten students and interviewed ten students. All but one of the students invited to interview were offered a job. All but one of those offered the job joined the team. One other was unable to work after accepting the job. Overall, the research team employed seven students. As a group, they exhibited excellent communications skills and mentored each other to improve networking and outreach skills.

Ambassadors’ Time Commitment

The Ambassadors’ engagement was originally conceived as a six-week program: one week of Ambassador and campus orientation events, four weeks consisting of one week of immersion on each of the four campuses, and one week of reflection and closing exercises. The IYC Ambassadors effort began in Fall 2021; however, due to COVID-19-related restrictions on face-to-face classes and disrupted commuting patterns, the study start date was postponed, and interactions remained partly online and via social media. In Spring 2022, restrictions were lifted, the study opened, and students were able to visit the four campus locations: FAU and PBSC in Boca Raton; BC and FAU in Davie; BC and FAU in Fort Lauderdale; and PBSC in Lake Worth (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Map of institutions in a Southeast Florida RCT. Source: Google maps.

During the first week of employment, the Ambassadors attended an orientation to introduce the team to the project and each other. Scheduling, logistical, and administrative issues were discussed. When campuses opened, over a four-week period the Ambassadors engaged on the different campuses. During the final project week, some Ambassadors participated in a focus group to collect data on their experience. Ambassadors earned an hourly rate independent of recruitment effectiveness.

Ambassador Activities

The graduate research assistant had previous experience in on-campus recruitment and was therefore well qualified to lead the Improve Your Commute (IYC) Ambassadors team by organizing team activities and scheduling during the timeframe set by the researchers. The main activities were planned with the research team in advance. The IYC Ambassadors engaged in two kinds of activities: in-person, on-campus events (tabling, research symposia) and social media (mostly Instagram posts and reels/short videos, to a lesser extent LinkedIn). Additional opportunities presented themselves at the research symposia, events arranged by FAU in which the Ambassadors and other student researchers participated. The in-person symposium was a poster session, and the virtual symposium was a PowerPoint presentation. In addition, one Ambassador wrote an article about the project for a college publication.

Mainly, Ambassadors presented the study to students at designated locations (tabling). Tabling was organized to concentrate activities on each campus over the course of a week. Ambassador participation in the activities varied according to their schedules. Tabling events generally required 3-4 people for a three-hour shift. Tabling events involved meeting at a preset location and time at a high-pedestrian-traffic point, where the academic institution regularly provided tables for student organizations, allowing the use of merchandise and games to attract participants. Two people hosted the table, administered the games, and distributed merchandise, while the others encouraged passersby to visit the table or distributed paper flyers and table tents at other locations on the same campus. At these events (and sometimes in their free time), Ambassadors wore highly visible, neon green Improve Your Commute (IYC)-branded T-shirts. At their reserved table, the Ambassadors created a color-coordinated display including a bright tablecloth and pop-up banners, IYC-branded merchandise including water bottles, T-shirts, ping-pong balls, pens, stickers, and pins. Ambassadors invited students to participate in interactive games, either transportation trivia or skill (“cup pong”), to win prizes. Ambassadors promoted the research study and provided the study QR-code. However, Ambassadors were instructed not to participate in the consent process or survey administration. Table 2 details the activities of the IYC Ambassadors in Fall 2021 and Spring 2022.

Table 2.

IYC Ambassador Activities in Fall 2021 – Spring 2022.

Activity	Metrics
Tabling	340 staff hours at 21 events: 5 in Fall 2021, 16 in Spring 2022
Presentations	2 research symposium presentations: 1 virtual, 1 in-person
Article	1 article appeared in a student publication
Social media	367 interactions: 91 stories, 30 posts, 25 stories and posts, 2 videos, 171 likes, 48 comments
Collaboration	38 student organizations were contacted 17 of these disseminated information

Results

We report the outcomes of the recruitment efforts in two ways. The descriptive statistics address the research question: How can incorporating peer-to-peer engagement (“Student Ambassadors”) enhance research in terms of diversity of participation? The focus group results respond to the research question: How do Student Ambassadors experience the engagement?

Descriptive Statistics

The results of the recruitment efforts were as follows. For the baseline survey, 755 people visited the online survey. Some were ineligible for the study according to the criteria, undergraduate students, living off-campus. Of these, 427 people enrolled in the study and provided consent, and 322 finished the survey. Three months later, people providing consent received notice of the online follow-up survey, which repeated questions from the baseline survey. Of the group of 427 participants, 139 people visited the follow-up survey and of those, 122 finished the follow-up survey. For survey 1, the responses from each college were 443 from Florida Atlantic University (FAU), 15 from Broward College, and 10 from Palm Beach State College. Clearly, the response rates from campuses other than FAU were insufficient to attract participation. Therefore, the findings presented in this paper are based on the participants from FAU, a convenience sample.

Effectiveness of Strategies

The research team analyzed the impact of the Student Ambassadors’ approach to recruit participants in addition to other survey marketing and distribution methods. The contribution of the approach can be observed in several ways. Figure 2 presents the perceived effectiveness of marketing strategies. Figure 3 compares the demographics of the study sample with the target population. Figure 4 shows marketing strategies by race/ethnicity. Finally, the results of a focus group conducted with the Student Ambassadors provide qualitative insights.

Figure 2.

Reported effectiveness of survey marketing strategies

Figure 3.

Study samples mirror student population by race/ethnicity.

Figure 4.

Marketing effectiveness byRace/Ethnicity.

Figure 2 presents the results of the survey question, “How did you hear about this study?“. Electronic marketing, in the form of pre-notification and reminder emails, as well as advertising on the learning management platform (LMS) Canvas, were the most important strategies for participation in the study. However, nine percent of respondents named some aspect of the Ambassadors program (contact with Ambassadors, word-of-mouth, or social media) as the source of knowing about the study. Compared with electronic marketing, the

Ambassadors’ effort expended considerable temporal and financial resources, although the overall contribution toward survey participation appeared to be less than that of other strategies, as measured by this survey question. However, Ambassadors’ activities conceptualized as peer engagement paid other dividends, as further explored in the focus group discussion.

Twenty-two percent of responders named the project website and twelve percent recalled seeing a poster, sign, or flyer—digital signage may have been included here. A limitation to this data is that it is self-reported, so accuracy was subject to respondents’ accuracy.

Demographic Representation

Nearly all (95%) of RCT participants were FAU students. Therefore, we use the FAU population as a basis for comparing the demographics of the study participants and Student Ambassadors.

Ambassadors—The team consisted of seven students—six from the lead institution (Florida Atlantic) and one from Broward College. Although the applicants were not recruited for diversity, we were delighted by the diverse pool of applicants, and the Ambassadors team reflected the diversity of the targeted student population. Their areas of study included urban design and planning, business, marketing, accounting, finance, and communications. Several were leaders of student organizations. The group included first- and second-generation immigrants and international students from Ecuador, Romania, Kenya, Bahamas, and the United States.

The demographic mix of the seven-person Ambassadors team (four female, three male; two graduate, five undergraduate) reflected the diversity of the FAU student body in terms of gender (approximately 50 percent female). Although we did not collect race/ethnicity data from the Student Ambassadors, we noted above their diverse countries of origin. The Ambassadors team self-identified as first or second-generation from five different countries and spoke multiple languages.

Study Participants—Similarly, the diversity of the study participants reflects that of the FAU student population, as shown in Table 3 and Figure 3. Over 65 percent of study participants identify in a category other than White. The diversity of the survey participants may likely contribute to the generalizability of the study results. Survey 1 is a baseline and Survey 2 is a follow-up three months later.

Table 3.

Study Demographics compared with Student Population.

Race and ethnicity	Survey 1		Survey 2		FAU
American Indian Native, or Islander	3	0%	1	1%	17	0%
Asian	19	5%	6	6%	748	4%
Black or African American	71	17%	18	17%	3157	19%
Hispanic or Latino	126	31%	23	21%	4527	27%
International¹	43	11%	11	10%	583	4%
Unknown	4	1%	1	1%	138	1%
Two or more races	14	3%	2	2%	653	4%
White	126	31%	45	42%	6788	41%
Totals	406	100%	107	100%	16,594	100%

(1) Students in the United States on a temporary basis are categorized as “non-resident Alien,” shown here as international.

Marketing Methods by Race/Ethnicity

Figure 1 presents the results of the survey question, “How did you hear about this study?“. We also wanted to know which study marketing methods (see above, Recruitment Strategies) seemed most effective by racial/ethnic group. Since study participants could name multiple strategies, the total number of responses exceeds the number of participants. Figure 4 shows how participant groups responded to different methods. Note, the White population includes White Hispanic.

Email—As shown in Figure 1, email proved the most effective way to reach students. As shown in Figure 4, email appeared to be the best way to reach Black and International/Non-resident students, as they are overrepresented for this method. However, email may not the best way to reach other populations (Figure 4).

Website—Website seemed the best way to reach White students. However, a limitation overall in understanding the effectiveness of the category “website,” is unclarity about how students found the project website. Ways to find the project website included QR-codes featured on print advertising (posters/flyers/post cards) and digital signage around campus as well as hyperlinks featured in emails and newsletters. Also, the White population includes White Hispanic.

Learning Management System (Canvas)—The online learning management system (Canvas) appeared to be the best way to reach Hispanic/Latino students and White students, as both groups are over-represented for this method. A limitation is the potential overlap between White/White Hispanic.

Ambassador Strategies—Ambassador strategies appeared to be a good way to reach Black students. However, a limitation on this result is the small overall number of students reporting this method (n = 36). Nevertheless, about nine percent of the total sample reported the influence of Ambassador Strategies (Figure 1), making this an important supplemental method.

Focus Group

The RCT recruitment phase ended on March 25, 2022. A focus group with five of the seven Student Ambassadors convened on April 14, 2022, to understand Ambassadors’ perceptions of their recruitment efforts. The one-hour, semi-structured debriefing conversation used open-ended questions about the overall experience as well as successful strategies and barriers to recruiting students.

Focus Group Questions

(1) What is your overall impression of having Student Ambassadors recruit students to participate in this trial?

(2) How did students react to your recruitment efforts?

(3) What were some obstacles to recruitment?

(4) How were these obstacles overcome?

(5) What parts of the recruitment effort did you enjoy the most/the least and why?

(6) What could be done to recruit more students?

Focus Group Insights

The research team conducted a qualitative analysis of participants’ responses, which revealed the Ambassadors’ perceptions of the experience. Limitations to the focus group format employed in this study include the presence of study leadership during the focus group because the format may have precluded spontaneous responses. Unasked/unanswered questions occurred to the research team after the focus group completed, as follows. How would you describe the amount of teamwork among Ambassadors? Was the Ambassador team experience adequately structured? How did Ambassadors receive direction from the leadership team, and were there concerns about communication or coordination?

P2P versus Traditional Approaches

The Ambassadors perceived their job as representing the study and relating to peers, mainly during “tabling,” which involved meeting at a preset location and time at a high-pedestrian-traffic point, using merchandise and games to attract potential participants on campus. When asked their overall impression of the approach, the Ambassadors reported building a connection to the students, who could relate to the Ambassadors and were therefore more likely to participate in the study. “Relatability” was mentioned multiple times by the Ambassadors.

Participant 1: The students…feel more comfortable knowing that students like ourselves are actually…advocating for them…then they are more likely to actually go fill out the research survey (Female, graduate student).

In addition to relatability, Ambassadors played a role as translators for study objectives. As Ryan et al. (2011) note, community researchers (in our case, recruiters) do not simply transmit data, they participate in multiple layers of interpretation and construction. Like other project members, “they are actors whose own positioning and normative discourses impact on the research process (p. 58). The Ambassadors reported that the peer-to-peer approach was superior to traditional methods such as flyers or professors as recruiters. The Ambassadors felt that other advertising might have made potential participants initially aware of the survey; however, their ability to answer questions supplied additional value.

Participant 4: There are people that just didn't know what commuting even was…let’s say I was one of those people…and I saw a flyer for the study that says…take the survey…I wouldn’t take it (Male, undergraduate student).

Ambassadors felt their connection, the use of visible, interactive activities and neon green T-shirts and merchandise attracted students to the table far more than the use of print advertising.

Participant 5: Student ambassadors actually are able to connect with students (Male, undergraduate student).

Participant 1: I think what actually brought students to the table as well were the games we had (Female, graduate student).

Participant 2: A lot of times students will come to a table if we have [merchandise] to give them (Female, undergraduate student).

Participant 5: To have a nice, bright green color and all the merchandise be color coded it’s kind of hard to ignore (Male, undergraduate student).

The Ambassadors also communicated job satisfaction by identifying with the marketing materials, the design of which was led by the team leader/graduate research assistant. The Ambassadors expressed satisfaction with the bright green color and logo appearing on their Ambassador T-shirts and merchandise. They found the “IYC” brand (“Improve Your Commute”) attractive and easy to explain.

Tabling events were scheduled on successive days of the week on each campus. The Ambassadors reported that some students visited the table repeatedly over days, allowing the establishment of rapport. Furthermore, the reported Ambassadors speaking about the study with others in their free (unpaid) time, indicating commitment to the project. The Ambassadors participated in two research symposiums: one virtual and one in person. For the online version, they created a PowerPoint presentation. For the in-person event, they created a research poster. The Ambassadors preferred the face-to-face symposium because it allowed more in-depth interaction. The Ambassadors conveyed job satisfaction by reporting the value in the peer-to-peer approach as compared with other methods of advertising.

Participant 5: Just saying, given the numbers that we’ve achieved, it’s a pure method of student engagement as opposed to more traditional research methods (Male, undergraduate student).

Facilitator: What do you consider a traditional research method?

Participant 5: Just passing flyers and I guess professors, just like in a low monotone voice saying “hey, would you like to join our study?” (Male, undergraduate student)

Overall, the Ambassadors reported greater satisfaction and success with face-to-face encounters than with online activities such as the virtual symposium and social media, as noted below under Areas of Improvement. The Ambassadors felt unsure about the value of their article for the college news outlet because no feedback was available.

Areas of Improvement

The Ambassadors felt that social media could have been further developed and leveraged. However, they did not enjoy employing social media for this purpose. Potentially, the Ambassadors self-identify as in-person engagers with little desire or skill in online efforts. Additionally, the lack of resonance for social media efforts demotivated Ambassadors.

Participant 4: My least favorite part was the social media. We sometimes spend 2 hours on a post that only got a few likes. I think the time could be spend on more tabling (Male, undergraduate student).

The Ambassadors suggested building an online brand or network over a longer timeframe and the use of more sophisticated and consistent social media marketing techniques. The Ambassadors recommended varying marketing designs over time to continue to engage potential participants. The Ambassadors thought cash or coupons for products as incentives would be effective, but not as a substitute for the Ambassadors program. The Ambassadors suggested leveraging relationships with other student organizations. Overall, the takeaway was to employ interactive engagement strategies over time.

Participant 3: We [could] collaborate with other student organizations and table with them for different events (Female, graduate research assistant).

Participant 6: You had some games like cup pong and stuff, so I think those [offered a] little bit more interaction…since they got a little bit more physical with it, they know it’s fun…even on social media if we were to do, maybe more videos (Male, undergraduate student).

When asked about barriers to survey completion, Ambassadors reported that some students attempted to complete the survey while at the table and reported to the Ambassadors confusion about survey terminology, questions about personal information, or frustration about the length of the survey.

Participant 2: The only barrier was the survey length. The 15 [minutes] is what gets them. The survey asks a lot of personal detail. Some of the vocabulary were too confusing for the students. Some students had questions about meaning/definitions (Female, graduate student).

The above comment also reveals a potential conundrum in employing Ambassadors to encourage potential participants to join the study. Although the graduate researcher/team leader completed CITI Human Subjects Research training, the other Ambassadors did not. Ambassadors received information in their orientation that they should direct potential participants to the study website, which required completion of a consent form per IRB-approved protocol. Ambassadors’ involvement with survey takers should have ended at that point.

In summary, the Ambassadors approach, which allowed for relatability, translation of concepts, and interpersonal interaction, exhibited some characteristics of the “insider” interaction which can overcome fear of authority for research participants (Bonevski et al., 2014, p. 15). The peer effect could be multiplied through interaction with additional student organizations. At the same time, limitations may include informal peer education, precipitating an intervention effect (Tiffany, 2006).

Discussion

The research team incorporated an array of methods and a diverse student team into the marketing approach, and the diversity of study participants reflected that of the student population. We do not assert a causal relationship between Ambassador diversity and study participation. FAU is the most diverse institution in Florida’s State University System,² and we were pleased to employ a team that reflected that population and exposed them to the research process. Over 65 percent of study participants identified as other than White, and the distribution according to race/ethnicity in the sample roughly mirrored that of the overall student population. Study participants were relatively less likely to identify as White and more likely to identify as Hispanic/Latino than the university’s overall student population. This result suggests that the Ambassador effect assisted in engaging a study population representative of themselves, if not the entire university. The research team achieved its goal of recruiting a diverse population in terms of ethnicity. The diversity of the survey participants may likely contribute to the generalizability of the RCT results.

While the results achieved in this study may vary in other settings, the findings suggest some interesting results for further research. Among the methods pursued, email seemed overall most effective, yet not most effective with international/non-resident students. Student Ambassador efforts (person-to-person contact and social media) seemed most effective with Black/African American students. Advertising on the online learning management system (Canvas) platform appears to be the best way to reach Hispanic/Latino students. Website resonated most with White students.

Including the Student Ambassador approach as part of recruitment provided a way for the undergraduate student Ambassadors to learn more about the research process, gain communication skills and confidence, and add to their work experience. They reported it as a positive experience, which was likely due in part to the outstanding leadership provided by the team’s graduate research assistant, who had experience in on-campus recruitment with a previous employer. Since Ambassadors reported that the study’s goals resonated with them—improving access to commuting options, conserving financial resources, improving academic outcomes—Ambassadors accrued personal benefits as actors in an advocacy role as well as an informational and engagement role. Personal characteristics needed for the job position included “enjoys speaking with students” (see Appendix B: Ambassador Job Announcement).

Among peer-to-peer approaches, tabling was a successful way to approach students. The table served as a hub at which students could gather to pick up merchandise. Games at the table served to engage the students, and the bright green color and merchandise attracted students. Online marketing seemed to be less optimal due to lack of synergy between Ambassadors and students.

“Word-of-mouth” was named a few times by study participants as “How they heard about the study.” Therefore, we believe snowball sampling may have played a role. In this case, Ambassadors asking commuting friends and acquaintances to participate may have contributed to the demographic composition of the RCT study participants. Although snowball sampling was not envisioned as part of the study design, we wish to acknowledge its associated limitations. Snowball sampling may lead to issues of generalizability; so, in a study of gender and sexuality, researchers recruited from dense public spaces where thousands could be solicited and a diverse sample could be enrolled (McCormack, 2014). Several participants in McCormack’s (2014) study indicated they would not have responded to other recruitment methods including posters and emails, and some younger participants stated the in-person approach allayed potential concerns about participating. Limitations to this approach might be rural settings or the exclusion of people who prefer not to engage in-person with strangers, as well as other issues of self-selection.

Alignment of institutional marketing efforts (emails, digital signage, digital learning platform) with the efforts of the Ambassadors team likely served as an awareness multiplier. Over 9% of the transportation study participants reported learning about the study from a person or social media as opposed to or in addition to other kinds of marketing. The diversified recruitment effort likely increased and diversified the overall sample size.

Among students who could potentially participate as participants in the research study, Ambassadors experienced push-back due to the length of the survey (i.e., they were told it would take about 15 minutes to complete), shyness, lack of time; other students were not qualified for this study (lived on campus or graduate students). Students attending the Research Symposium (likely from STEM areas) appeared to be more interested in participating in research, given that their training involves rigorous collection of data, or the venue may have created an environment to better engage students.

Ambassadors’ suggestions included shortening the survey or at least have more information on the true duration of completion; better use of social media; and more emphasis on snowball sampling—asking students to ask other students to participate. Participants would benefit from feedback regarding how well the survey is doing (i.e., thermometer of recruitment) and preliminary results could be shared. More advertising could be distributed to other areas (i.e., bus stops), potentially with the support of transportation partners.

However, challenges confronted the research team in coordinating marketing among partnering educational institutions. Nearly all email efforts and survey responses came from FAU, the lead institution. Since the team did not achieve its objective of including ample participants across campuses, this result presents a limitation in terms of generalizability to two-year, all-commuter institutions. As part of the transportation research study, the research team also convened a Transit Partnership, consisting of three educational institutions and multiple transportation agencies. Although interest among all partners in the study results was high, partners other than the lead institution did not receive grant funding and had fewer resources to devote to marketing. The provision of marketing materials to educational partners was not enough to guarantee sustained distribution, since they lacked some outlets such as digital signage or capacity among personnel.

In addition, the pandemic resulted in staffing challenges, reduced student enrollment, and increased participation in online classes during the project timeframe. At some campuses in the early days of post-pandemic opening, students were scarce on campus; although those who appeared interested were more likely to be engaged by Ambassadors, possibly due to having more time to engage. Some Ambassadors were unable to travel to other institutions to participate in tabling events. Furthermore, the uncertain status of in-person events over the project lifespan impacted the planning and execution of marketing efforts.

Conclusions

According to the unpublished results of the main RCT study, students on a commuter campus were more likely to be lower income, to be employed, and to have additional caregiving responsibilities for children or parents. Since car ownership represents a heavier burden for lower-income households, such households may struggle to maintain car ownership (Klein & Smart, 2017; Smart & Klein, 2015). While many factors may contribute to student success, conducting research on transportation alternatives may be particularly valuable for commuting students and ultimately contribute to better outcomes. However, recruitment of diverse groups presents additional challenges—commuting students may spend less time on campus than others, especially considering their responsibilities beyond coursework. Thus, in-person strategies for commuting students must be well aligned with commuting behaviors and flexible to meet post-pandemic challenges. Ascertaining peak times for commuters on campus (as opposed to students in general) may produce better results for peer-to-peer approaches.

While increasing numbers of White, Black, and Hispanic students are enrolling in higher education, success rates vary among student populations (De Brey et al., 2019). Yet members of various groups may be more receptive to different study recruitment strategies or combinations of strategies; therefore, employing a range of methods and further research may prove fruitful. Pre-testing marketing messaging for diverse groups may improve results. Allocating sufficient resources—time, budget, and personnel—for producing marketing materials, ordering merchandise, and hiring and training peer-to-peer engagement personnel is vital. However, such efforts toward equitable representation of all segments of the study population may bring great value to research studies.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Peer Engagement: On Reflecting Student Diversity in a Research Trial

Supplemental Material for Peer Engagement: On Reflecting Student Diversity in a Research Trial by Serena Hoermann, John L. Renne, Katherine Freeman, Louis A. Merlin, Albena Dzhurova, and Paula Lopez in International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a grant from The Kresge Foundation (G-1905-285349).

ORCID iD

Serena Hoermann

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Arayasirikul

Cai

Wilson

E. C.

(2015). A qualitative examination of respondent-driven sampling (RDS) peer referral challenges among young transwomen in the San Francisco Bay Area. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 1(2), Article e9. https://doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.4573

Bauermeister

J. A.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Johns

M. M.

Glowacki

Stoddard

Volz

(2012). Innovative recruitment using online networks: Lessons learned from an online study of alcohol and other drug use utilizing a web-based, respondent-driven sampling (webRDS) strategy. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(5), 834–838. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2012.73.834

Bonevski

Randell

Paul

Chapman

Twyman

Bryant

Brozek

Hughes

(2014). Reaching the hard-to-reach: A systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-42

Brown

Klein

N. J.

Smart

M. J.

Howell

(2022). Buying access one trip at a time: Lower-Income households and ride-hail. Journal of the American Planning Association, 88(4), 495–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2022.2027262

Brownlie

(2009). Researching not playing in the public sphere. Sociology, 43(4), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509105416

Broyles

L. M.

Rodriguez

K. L.

Price

P. A.

Bayliss

N. K.

Sevick

M. A.

(2011). Overcoming barriers to the recruitment of nurses as participants in health care research. Qualitative Health Research, 21(12), 1705–1718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311417727

Burgard

Bosnjak

Wedderhoff

(2020). Response rates in online surveys with affective disorder participants. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000394

Clark

L. T.

Watkins

Piña

I. L.

Elmer

Akinboboye

Gorham

Regnante

J. M.

Jamerson

McCullough

Pierre

Polis

A. B.

Puckrein

Regnante

J. M.

(2019). Increasing diversity in clinical trials: Overcoming critical barriers. Current Problems in Cardiology, 44(5), 148–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2018.11.002

Connor

Kyalwazi

Turkson-Ocran

R. A.

Ölveczky

(2022). Promoting inclusive recruitment: A qualitative study of black adults’ decision to participate in genetic research. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 99(5), 803–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-022-00664-0

10.

Daikeler

Silber

Bošnjak

(2022). A meta-analysis of how Country-level factors affect web survey response rates. International Journal of Market Research, 64(3), 306–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853211050916

11.

Davis

Wright

P. W.

Schulman

S. F.

Hill

L. D.

Pinkham

R. D.

Johnson

L. P.

Jones

T. W.

Kellogg

H. B.

Jr Radke

H. M.

Sikkema

W. W.

Hammar

S. P.

(1985). Participants in prospective, randomized clinical trials for resected non-small cell lung cancer have improved survival compared with nonparticipants in such trials. Cancer, 56(7), 1710–1718. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19851001)56:7<1710::aid-cncr2820560741>3.0.co;2-t

12.

Deaton

(2020). Randomization in the tropics revisited: A theme and eleven variations. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 27600. Working Paper Series.https://doi.org/10.3386/w27600

13.

De Brey

Musu

McFarland

Wilkinson-Flicker

Diliberti

Zhang

Wang

(2019). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2018. NCES 2019-038. National Center for Education Statistics.

14.

De Koning

Egiz

Kotecha

Ciuculete

A. C.

Ooi

S. Z. Y.

Bankole

N. D. A.

Kanmounye

U. S.

Erhabor

Higginbotham

Khan

Dalle

D. U.

Sichimba

Bandyopadhyay

Kanmounye

U. S.

(2021). Survey fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of neurosurgery survey response rates. Frontiers in Surgery, 8, Article 690680. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.690680

15.

Dobkin

R. D.

Amondikar

Kopil

Caspell-Garcia

Brown

Chahine

L. M.

Tanner

C. M.

Marras

Dahodwala

Mantri

Standaert

D. G.

Dean

Shoulson

Marek

Katz

Korell

Riley

Tanner

C. M.

Fox Insight Study . (2020). Innovative recruitment strategies to increase diversity of participation in Parkinson’s disease research: The Fox Insight Cohort Experience. Journal of Parkinson's Disease, 10(2), 665–675. https://doi.org/10.3233/JPD-191901

16.

Ellard-Gray

Jeffrey

N. K.

Choubak

Crann

S. E.

(2015). Finding the hidden participant: Solutions for recruiting hidden, hard-to-reach, and vulnerable populations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), Article 160940691562142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621420

17.

Fan

Yan

(2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015

18.

Fass-Holmes

(2022). Survey fatigue—literature search and analysis of implications for student affairs policies and practices. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 11(1), 56–73. https://ojed.org/index.php/jise/article/view/3262/1821

19.

Fawcett

Hearn

(2004). Researching others: Epistemology, experience, standpoints and participation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 7(3), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570210163989

20.

George

Duran

Norris

(2014). A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), e16–e31. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2013.301706

21.

Heiat

Gross

C. P.

Krumholz

H. M.

(2002). Representation of the elderly, women, and minorities in heart failure clinical trials. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162(15), 1682–1688. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.162.15.1682

22.

Helms

Y. B.

Hamdiui

Kretzschmar

M. E.

Rocha

L. E.

Van Steenbergen

J. E.

Bengtsson

Stein

M. L.

Thorson

Timen

Stein

M. L.

(2021). Applications and recruitment performance of web-based respondent-driven sampling: Scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(1), Article e17564. https://doi.org/10.2196/17564

23.

Hox

J. J.

De Leeuw

E. D.

(1994). A comparison of nonresponse in mail, telephone, and face-to-face surveys. Quality and Quantity, 28(4), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01097014

24.

Hussain-Gambles

Atkin

Leese

(2004). Why ethnic minority groups are under-represented in clinical trials: A review of the literature. Health and Social Care in the Community, 12(5), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00507.x

25.

Kelsey

M. D.

Patrick-Lake

Abdulai

Broedl

U. C.

Brown

Cohn

Bloomfield

G. S.

Curtis

L. H.

Komelasky

Mbagwu

Mensah

G. A.

Mentz

R. J.

Nyaku

Omokaro

S. O.

Sewards

Whitlock

Zhang

Bloomfield

G. S.

(2022). Inclusion and diversity in clinical trials: Actionable steps to drive lasting change. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 116, Article 106740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2022.106740

26.

Khatamian Far

(2018). Challenges of recruitment and retention of university students as research participants: Lessons learned from a pilot study. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 67(3), 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2018.1500436

27.

Klein

N. J.

Smart

M. J.

(2017). Car today, gone tomorrow: The ephemeral car in low-income, immigrant and minority families. Transportation, 44(3), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9664-4

28.

Leissa

S. M.

Randolph

J. C.

Stephens

J. D.

(2021). Recruitment of black identifying young adults into clinical trials: A report from the field. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 98(Suppl 2), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-021-00569-4

29.

McCormack

(2014). Innovative sampling and participant recruitment in sexuality research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(4), 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514522889

30.

Merlin

L. A.

Freeman

Renne

Hoermann

(2022). Clustered randomized controlled trial protocol of a Mobility-as-a-Service app for college campuses. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 14, Article 100572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100572

31.

Miranda

Nakamura

Bernal

(2003). Including ethnic minorities in mental health intervention research: A practical approach to a long-standing problem. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 27(4), 467–486. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:medi.0000005484.26741.79

32.

Mosher

H. I.

Moorthi

Weeks

M. R.

(2015). A qualitative analysis of peer recruitment pressures in respondent driven sampling: Are risks above the ethical limit? International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(9), 832–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.05.027

33.

Neal

J. W.

Piteo

(2020). Call me maybe: Using incentives and follow-ups to increase principals’ survey response rates. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(4), 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2020.1772423

34.

Ngune

Jiwa

Dadich

Lotriet

Sriram

(2012). Effective recruitment strategies in primary care research: A systematic review. Quality in Primary Care, 20(2), 115–123.

35.

Porter

Dungey

(2021). Innovative field research methodologies for more inclusive transport planning: Review and prospect. In Advances in Transport Policy and Planning, 8, 273–303.

36.

Ryan

Golden

(2006). Tick the box please: A reflexive approach to doing quantitative social research. Sociology, 40(6), 1191–1200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038506072287

37.

Ryan

Kofman

Aaron

(2011). Insiders and outsiders: Working with peer researchers in researching muslim communities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2010.481835

38.

Satcher

(2001). Mental health: Culture, race, and ethnicity—a supplement to mental health: A report of the surgeon general. US Department of Health and Human Services.

39.

Shih

T. H.

Fan

(2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20(3), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08317085

40.

Smart

M. J.

Klein

N. J.

(2015). Longitudinal analysis of cars, Transit, and employment outcomes (No. MNTRC report 12-49).

41.

Smith

M. G.

Witte

Rocha

Basner

(2019). Effectiveness of incentives and follow-up on increasing survey response rates and participation in field studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19, 1–13.

42.

Song

Parker

(1995). Commonality, difference and the dynamics of disclosure in in-depth interviewing. Sociology, 29(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038595029002004

43.

Thakur

Lovinsky-Desir

Appell

Bime

Castro

Celedón

J. C.

Ferreira

George

Mageto

Mainous III

A. G.

Pakhale

Riekert

K. A.

Roman

Ruvalcaba

Sharma

Shete

Wisnivesky

J. P.

Holguin

(2021). Enhancing recruitment and retention of minority populations for clinical research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine: An official American Thoracic Society research statement. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 204(3), e26–e50. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202105-1210ST

44.

Tiffany

J. S.

(2006). Respondent-driven sampling in participatory research contexts: Participant-driven recruitment. Journal of Urban Health, 83, 113–124.

45.

M. J.

Zhao

Fils-Aime

(2022). Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, Article 100206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206

46.

Yancey

A. K.

Ortega

A. N.

Kumanyika

S. K.

(2006). Effective recruitment and retention of minority research participants. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102113

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.19 MB