Use of Telephone and Digital Channels to Engage Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Adults in Health Disparities Research Within a Social Service Setting: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Engaging socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in health research is vital to understanding and, ultimately, eliminating health-related disparities. Digital communication channels are increasingly used to recruit study participants, and recent trends indicate a growing need to partner with the social service sector to improve population health. However, few studies have recruited participants from social service settings using multiple digital channels. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to recruit and survey 3791 adult clients of a social service organization via telephone and digital channels. This paper aimed to describe recruitment outcomes across five channels and compare participant characteristics by recruitment channel type. METHODS: The Cancer Communication Channels in Context Study recruited and surveyed adult clients of 2-1-1, a social service-focused information and referral system, using five channels: telephone, website, text message, web-based live chat, and email. Participants completed surveys administered either by phone (if recruited by phone) or on the web (if recruited from digital channels, ie, website, text message, Web-based live chat, or email). Measures for the current analysis included demographic and health characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 3293 participants were recruited, with 1907 recruited by phone and 1386 recruited from digital channels. Those recruited by phone had a moderate study eligibility rate (42.23%) and the highest survey completion rate (91.24%) of all channels. Individuals recruited by text message had a high study eligibility rate (94.14%) yet the lowest survey completion rate (74.0%) of all channels. Sample accrual goals were achieved for phone, text message, and website recruitment. Multivariable analyses found differences in participant characteristics by recruitment channel type. Compared with participants recruited by phone, those recruited from digital channels were younger (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.96, 95% CI 0.96-0.97) and more likely to be female (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23-1.88), married (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22-1.89), and other than non-Hispanic black (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.22-1.79). Those recruited via phone also were more likely to have more than a high school education (aOR 2.17, 95% CI 1.67-2.82), have a household income ≥US $25,000 a year (aOR 2.02, 95% CI 1.56-2.61), and have children living in the home (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.51). Additionally, participants recruited from digital channels were less likely than those recruited by phone to have public health insurance (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90) and more likely to report better overall health (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.27-1.83 for good-to-excellent health). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate the feasibility and utility of recruiting socioeconomically disadvantaged adults from the social service sector using multiple communication channels, including digital channels. As social service-based health research evolves, strategic recruitment using a combination of traditional and digital channels may be warranted to avoid underrepresentation of highly medically vulnerable individuals, which could exacerbate disparities in health.

A minimal intervention to promote smoke-free homes among 2-1-1 callers: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: We tested the efficacy of a minimal intervention to create smoke-free homes in low-income households recruited through the United Way of Greater Atlanta 2-1-1, an information and referral system that connects callers to local social services. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial (n=498) from June 2012 through June 2013, with follow-up at 3 and 6 months. The intervention consisted of 3 mailings and 1 coaching call. RESULTS: Participants were mostly smokers (79.7%), women (82.7%), African American (83.3%), and not employed (76.5%), with an annual household income of $10,000 or less (55.6%). At 6-months postbaseline, significantly more intervention participants reported a full ban on smoking in the home than did control participants (40.0% vs 25.4%; P=.002). The intervention worked for smokers and nonsmokers, as well as those with or without children. CONCLUSIONS: Minimal intervention was effective in promoting smoke-free homes in low income households and offers a potentially scalable model for protecting children and adult nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure in their homes.