Table 1.
Recruitment outcomes for the American Men’s Internet Survey, United States, 2016.
| Recruitment outcomes | Total | Gay social networking (n=2) | General gay interest (n=1) | General social networking (n=3) | Geospatial social networking (n=2) | AMISa 2015 participants | |||||||
| Clicked ad (N) | 147,143 | 4162 | 557 | 58,917 | 83,507 | Not applicable | |||||||
| Screenedb, n (%) | 51,876 (35.26) | 2877 (69.13) | 181 (32.50) | 39,281 (66.67) | 8137 (9.74) | 1400 | |||||||
| Ineligiblec, n (%) | 23,173 (44.67) | 564 (19.60) | 147 (81.22) | 19,271 (49.06) | 3039 (37.35) | 152 (10.86) | |||||||
|
|
Not ≥15 years of aged | 16,643 (71.82) | 438 (77.66) | 91 (61.90) | 13,572 (70.43) | 2441 (80.32) | 101 (66.45) | ||||||
|
|
Not maled | 19,079 (82.33) | 511 (90.60) | 94 (63.95) | 15,641 (81.16) | 2704 (88.98) | 129 (84.87) | ||||||
|
|
Not MSMe ever or not identifying as gay/bisexuald | 22,282 (96.16) | 549 (97.34) | 99 (67.35) | 18,721 (97.15) | 2790 (91.81) | 123 (80.92) | ||||||
|
|
Nonresidentd | 18,989 (81.94) | 471 (83.51) | 144 (97.96) | 15,383 (79.82) | 2845 (93.62) | 146 (96.05) | ||||||
| Eligiblec, n (%) | 28,703 (55.33) | 2313 (80.40) | 34 (18.78) | 20,010 (50.94) | 5098 (62.65) | 1248 (89.14) | |||||||
| Consentedf, n (%) | 20,583 (71.71) | 1716 (74.19) | 28 (82.35) | 13,776 (68.85) | 3928 (77.05) | 1135 (90.95) | |||||||
| Unduplicatedg, n (%) | 18,038 (87.64) | 1604 (93.47) | 23 (82.14) | 11,876 (86.21) | 3501 (89.13) | 1034 (91.10) | |||||||
| Successh, n (%) | 11,636 (64.51) | 1242 (77.43) | 14 (60.87) | 7594 (63.94) | 1870 (53.41) | 916 (88.59) | |||||||
| MSM in past 12 monthsi, n (%) | 10,222 (87.85) | 1165 (93.80) | 13 (92.86) | 6443 (84.84) | 1756 (93.90) | 845 (92.25) | |||||||
| Valid ZIPj codek, n (%) | 10,166 (99.45) | 1160 (99.57) | 13 (100.00) | 6401 (99.35) | 1750 (99.66) | 842 (99.64) | |||||||
aAMIS: American Men’s Internet Survey.
bProportion of total participants who clicked on the ad, including those who started the screening questionnaire.
cProportion of total participants screened. Participants who did not complete the screening questionnaire were considered ineligible.
dProportion of total ineligible participants, including those who did not respond to the question.
eMSM: men who have sex with men.
fProportion of eligible participants.
gProportion of participants who consented. Deduplication removes participants who were marked as duplicates using the internet protocol address and demographic data matching.
hProportion of unduplicated participants. Success in deduplication removes participants who did not pass the test for survey completeness.
iProportion of successes.
jZIP: zone improvement plan.
kProportion of men who had sex with men in the past 12 months. Valid US ZIP codes were those that could be matched to the ZIP code for county crosswalk files created by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Any ZIP codes that could not be matched to this list were then hand validated by checking against the ZIP code-locator tool on the US Postal Service website. ZIP codes that could not be found were classified as invalid.