| Autor: |
Iott BE; School of Information, University of Michigan, 3443 North Quad, 105 S. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1285, USA.; Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA., Veinot TC; School of Information, University of Michigan, 3443 North Quad, 105 S. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1285, USA. tveinot@umich.edu.; Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. tveinot@umich.edu., Loveluck J; Unified - HIV Health and Beyond, Ypsilanti, MI, USA., Kahle E; School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA., Golson L; Unified - HIV Health and Beyond, Ypsilanti, MI, USA., Benton A; Unified - HIV Health and Beyond, Ypsilanti, MI, USA. |
| Abstrakt: |
HIV/AIDS-related research requires recruitment of representative samples of MSM; yet, we know little about the comparative yield, diversity and cost-benefit tradeoffs between different recruitment venues. We compared 11 recruitment venues used for nine HIV prevention-related focus groups with MSM in Metropolitan Detroit. Of the 64 participants, 24 were clients recruited via an HIV/AIDS-focused nonprofit, 20 from Grindr advertisements, 6 from university-student email lists, and 5 from flyers/palmcards. Significantly more African-American, low-income and HIV-positive participants were recruited via the nonprofit. The best cost-benefit tradeoffs were for organizational Facebook posts, email groups, personal networking, and nonprofit recruitment. Grindr increased the size of the sample, though at greater expense. Facebook and Scruff advertisements and gay bar outreach represented greater costs than benefits. Only 11.6% of Grindr respondents attended the focus groups. A mix of online and offline recruitment venues can generate a large and diverse sample of MSM, but venue performance is uneven. |
Full text from SpringerLink