Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Mar 15;18(3):e51.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.5258.

Including Online-Recruited Seeds: A Respondent-Driven Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men

Nathan John Lachowsky  1 , Allan Lal, Jamie I Forrest, Kiffer George Card, Zishan Cui, Paul Sereda, Ashleigh Rich, Henry Fisher Raymond, Eric A Roth, David M Moore, Robert S Hogg
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Including Online-Recruited Seeds: A Respondent-Driven Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men

Nathan John Lachowsky et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Technology has changed the way men who have sex with men (MSM) seek sex and socialize, which may impact the implementation of respondent-driven sampling (RDS) among this population. Initial participants (also known as seeds) are a critical consideration in RDS because they begin the recruitment chains. However, little information is available on how the online-recruited seeds may effect RDS implementation.

Objective: The objectives of this study were to compare (1) online-recruited versus offline-recruited seeds and (2) subsequent recruitment chains of online-recruited versus offline-recruited seeds.

Methods: Between 2012 and 2014, we recruited MSM using RDS in Vancouver, Canada. RDS weights were used with logistic regression to address each objective.

Results: A total of 119 seeds were used, 85 of whom were online-recruited seeds, to recruit an additional 600 MSM. Compared with offline-recruited seeds, online-recruited seeds were less likely to be HIV-positive (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13-0.88), to have attended a gay community group (AOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.90), and to feel gay community involvement was "very important" (AOR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.93). Online-recruited seeds were more likely to ask a sexual partner's HIV status always versus <50% of the time (AOR 5.21, 95% CI 1.17-23.23), to have watched the Pride parade (AOR 6.30, 95% CI 1.69-23.45), and to have sought sex online (AOR 4.29, 95% CI 1.53-12-12.05). Further, compared with recruitment chains started by offline-recruited seeds, recruits from chains started by online-recruited seeds (283/600, 47.2%) were less likely to be HIV-positive (AOR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16-0.40), to report "versatile" versus "bottom" sexual position preference (AOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.88), and to be in a relationship lasting >1 year (AOR 1.65, 95% CI 1.06-2.56). Recruits of online seeds were more likely to be out as gay for longer (eg, 11-21 vs 1-4 years, AOR 2.22, 95% CI 1.27-3.88) and have fewer Facebook friends (eg, 201-500 vs >500, AOR 1.69, 95% CI 1.02-2.80).

Conclusions: Online-recruited seeds were more prevalent, recruited fewer participants, but were different from those recruited offline. This may therefore help create a more diverse overall sample. Our work has shown the value of geosocial networking apps for aiding RDS recruitment efforts, especially when faced with slow participation uptake by other means. Understanding the degree to which networks interact will be an important next step in confirming the efficacy of online RDS recruitment strategies.

Keywords: HIV/AIDS; Internet; men who have sex with men; online recruitment; respondent driven sampling.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. Johnston LG, Whitehead S, Simic-Lawson M, Kendall C. Formative research to optimize respondent-driven sampling surveys among hard-to-reach populations in HIV behavioral and biological surveillance: lessons learned from four case studies. AIDS Care. 2010 Jun;22(6):784–792. doi: 10.1080/09540120903373557. - DOI - PubMed
    1. White RG, Lansky A, Goel S, Wilson D, Hladik W, Hakim A, Frost SDW. Respondent driven sampling--where we are and where should we be going? Sex Transm Infect. 2012 Oct;88(6):397–399. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2012-050703. http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=23012492 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heckathorn DD. SNOWBALL VERSUS RESPONDENT-DRIVEN SAMPLING. Sociol Methodol. 2011 Aug 1;41(1):355–366. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01244.x. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22228916 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gile KJ, Handcock MS. Respondent-Driven Sampling: An Assessment of Current Methodology. Sociol Methodol. 2010 Aug;40(1):285–327. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01223.x. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22969167 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bryant J. Using respondent-driven sampling with ‘hard to reach’ marginalised young people: problems with slow recruitment and small network size. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2013 Jul 04;17(6):599–611. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2013.811921. - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources