Mai Frandsen
University of Tasmania
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Mai Frandsen.
Nicotine & Tobacco Research | 2014
Mai Frandsen; Julia Walters; Stuart G. Ferguson
INTRODUCTION The aim of the present study was to explore the viability of using social media as a recruitment tool in a clinical research trial. Sociodemographic data and smoking characteristics were assessed in 266 participants recruited to investigate the effectiveness of a behavioral support program for smoking cessation. METHODS For analysis, participants were separated into 2 groups based on whether they were recruited either using traditional means (flyers, word of mouth, or newspaper advertisement; n = 125, 47.0%) or by advertisements in online social media (n = 138, 51.9%). RESULTS Participants recruited via social media were significantly younger, but there were no differences in other socioeconomic variables or smoking characteristics compared with participants recruited via other traditional means. CONCLUSIONS The findings of the present study suggest that using online social media is a viable recruitment method for smoking studies and compliments other more traditional recruitment methods.
Nicotine & Tobacco Research | 2014
Natalie Schüz; Julia Walters; Mai Frandsen; Jodie Bower; Stuart G. Ferguson
INTRODUCTION Arguably, the greatest advantage of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies is that data are collected repeatedly in real-time and real-world situations, which reduces recall and situational biases and thus improves the accuracy and validity of the data collected. However, the validity of EMA data is contingent upon compliance rates. If participant characteristics are related to missing data, analyses should control for these factors, or they should be targeted in EMA training sessions. This study evaluates the impact of demographic and smoking-related participant characteristics on compliance to an EMA smoking study protocol. METHODS Prequit-day data were taken from the control arm of an ongoing randomized controlled trial of a smoking-cessation program. After training, 119 participants were asked to carry a mobile device with them at all times for ~6 days and to log every cigarette they smoked in addition to completing randomly scheduled assessments. Different types of compliance were assessed: the percentage of completed random prompts (signal-contingent compliance), the percentage of logged cigarettes per day compared to a timeline follow-back measure, and the correlation between logged cigarettes and a carbon monoxide assessment 2 hr later (both event-contingent compliance). RESULTS Overall compliance rates were 78.48% for event-contingent and 72.17% for signal-contingent compliance. None of the demographic or smoking-related participant characteristics predicted signal-contingent compliance; however, female participants showed higher event-contingent compliance than male participants, and Caucasian participants showed higher event-contingent compliance than non-Caucasian participants. CONCLUSIONS Compliance did not depend on smoking-related characteristics. EMA is a valid method for assessing smoking behavior in real-time and real-world settings.
JMIR Research Protocols | 2016
Mai Frandsen; Megan Thow; Stuart G. Ferguson
Background Recruiting participants for research studies can be difficult and costly. The popularity of social media platforms (eg, Facebook) has seen corresponding growth in the number of researchers turning to social networking sites and their embedded advertising frameworks to locate eligible participants for studies. Compared with traditional recruitment strategies such as print media, social media advertising has been shown to be favorable in terms of its reach (especially with hard-to-reach populations), cost effectiveness, and usability. However, to date, no studies have examined how participants recruited via social media progress through a study compared with those recruited using more traditional recruitment strategies. Objectives (1) Examine whether visiting the study website prior to being contacted by researchers creates self-screened participants who are more likely to progress through all study phases (eligible, enrolled, completed); (2) compare conversion percentages and cost effectiveness of each recruitment method at each study phase; and, (3) compare demographic and smoking characteristics of participants recruited through each strategy to determine if they attract similar samples. Methods Participants recruited to a smoking cessation clinical trial were grouped by how they had become aware of the study: via social media (Facebook) or traditional media (eg, newspaper, flyers, radio, word of mouth). Groups were compared based on throughput data (conversion percentages and cost) as well as demographic and smoking characteristics. Results Visiting the study website did not result in individuals who were more likely to be eligible for (P=.24), enroll in (P=.20), or complete (P=.25) the study. While using social media was more cost effective than traditional methods when we examined earlier endpoints of the recruitment process (cost to obtain a screened respondent: AUD
Nicotine & Tobacco Research | 2016
Ke Memish; Natalie Schüz; Mai Frandsen; Stuart G. Ferguson; Benjamin Schüz
22.73 vs
Nephrology | 2017
Rajesh Raj; Kiran D.K. Ahuja; Mai Frandsen; Matthew D. Jose
29.35; cost to obtain an eligible respondent:
Addiction | 2015
Stuart G. Ferguson; Jamie Brown; Mai Frandsen; Robert West
37.56 vs
Nicotine & Tobacco Research | 2017
Mai Frandsen; Megan Thow; Stuart G. Ferguson
44.77), it was less cost effective in later endpoints (cost per enrolled participant:
Negative Affective States and Cognitive Impairments in Nicotine Dependence | 2017
Mai Frandsen; M Thorpe; Saul Shiffman; Stuart G. Ferguson
56.34 vs
Journal of Asthma | 2018
Heinrich Weber; Eh Walters; Mai Frandsen; Shyamali C. Dharmage
52.33; cost per completed participant:
Health Sociology Review | 2018
Ec Hansen; Mai Frandsen; Danielle Williams; Stuart G. Ferguson
103.66 vs