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

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.

[1]  W. Mcfarland,et al.  Comparing Samples of Men Who Have Sex with Men Recruited Online and in Venues, Jiangsu Province, China, 2013. , 2016, LGBT health.

[2]  J. Bryant.  Using respondent-driven sampling with ‘hard to reach’ marginalised young people: problems with slow recruitment and small network size , 2014 .

[3]  J. Parsons,et al.  Comparing three cohorts of MSM sampled via sex parties, bars/clubs, and Craigslist.org: implications for researchers and providers. , 2014, AIDS education and prevention : official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education.

[4]  Ian W. Holloway,et al.  Online Social Networking, Sexual Risk and Protective Behaviors: Considerations for Clinicians and Researchers , 2014, Current Addiction Reports.

[5]  J. Bauermeister,et al.  Gay and Bisexual Men's Use of the Internet: Research from the 1990s through 2013 , 2014, Journal of sex research.

[6]  W. Mcfarland,et al.  Prevalence, correlates and trends in seroadaptive behaviours among men who have sex with men from serial cross-sectional surveillance in San Francisco, 2004–2011 , 2014, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[7]  Ashleigh J. Rich,et al.  Community mapping and respondent-driven sampling of gay and bisexual men's communities in Vancouver, Canada , 2014, Culture, health & sexuality.

[8]  J. Lewnard,et al.  Internet-based partner selection and risk for unprotected anal intercourse in sexual encounters among men who have sex with men: a meta-analysis of observational studies , 2014, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[9]  Kelika A. Konda,et al.  Sampling Methodologies for Epidemiologic Surveillance of Men Who Have Sex with Men and Transgender Women in Latin America: An Empiric Comparison of Convenience Sampling, Time Space Sampling, and Respondent Driven Sampling , 2014, AIDS and Behavior.

[10]  Ann M Jolly,et al.  Understanding recruitment: outcomes associated with alternate methods for seed selection in respondent driven sampling , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[11]  Christopher Homan,et al.  Respondent-Driven Sampling in Online Social Networks , 2013, SBP.

[12]  Abby E. Rudolph,et al.  The Importance of Measuring and Accounting for Potential Biases in Respondent-Driven Samples , 2013, AIDS and Behavior.

[13]  Sharad Goel,et al.  Respondent driven sampling—where we are and where should we be going? , 2012, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[14]  J. Bauermeister,et al.  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. , 2012, Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs.

[15]  P. Anton,et al.  Use of the Location-Based Social Networking Application GRINDR as a Recruitment Tool in Rectal Microbicide Development Research , 2012, AIDS and Behavior.

[16]  Linus Bengtsson,et al.  Implementation of Web-Based Respondent-Driven Sampling among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Vietnam , 2012, PloS one.

[17]  Andrew J Copas,et al.  Evaluation of Respondent-driven Sampling , 2012, Epidemiology.

[18]  Douglas D. Heckathorn,et al.  Comment: Snowball versus Respondent-Driven Sampling , 2011 .

[19]  D. Heckathorn,et al.  SNOWBALL VERSUS RESPONDENT-DRIVEN SAMPLING. , 2011, Sociological methodology.

[20]  Carl Kendall,et al.  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 , 2010, AIDS care.

[21]  S. Reisner,et al.  What Makes a Respondent-Driven Sampling “Seed” Productive? Example of Finding At-Risk Massachusetts Men Who Have Sex with Men , 2010, Journal of Urban Health.

[22]  Matthew J. Salganik,et al.  Assessing respondent-driven sampling , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Mark S Handcock,et al.  7. Respondent-Driven Sampling: An Assessment of Current Methodology , 2009, Sociological methodology.

[24]  W. Mcfarland,et al.  Comparing Internet-Based and Venue-Based Methods to Sample MSM in the San Francisco Bay Area , 2010, AIDS and Behavior.

[25]  Jie Zhang,et al.  Differences between Internet and community samples of MSM: implications for behavioral surveillance among MSM in China , 2008, AIDS care.

[26]  Lisa G. Johnston,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Respondent-driven Sampling, Time Location Sampling, and Snowball Sampling for Behavioral Surveillance in Men Who Have Sex with Men, Fortaleza, Brazil , 2008, AIDS and Behavior.

[27]  B. Mustanski,et al.  Are sexual partners met online associated with HIV/STI risk behaviours? Retrospective and daily diary data in conflict , 2007, AIDS care.

[28]  Gary Marks,et al.  Meta-analytic Examination of Online Sex-Seeking and Sexual Risk Behavior Among Men Who Have Sex With Men , 2006, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[29]  D. Heckathorn,et al.  Extensions of Respondent-Driven Sampling: A New Approach to the Study of Injection Drug Users Aged 18–25 , 2002, AIDS and Behavior.

[30]  Douglas D. Heckathorn,et al.  Respondent-driven sampling : A new approach to the study of hidden populations , 1997 .