ArticleBMC medical research methodology2009
Strategies for improving patient recruitment to focus groups in primary care: a case study reflective paper using an analytical framework.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological and ethical challenges in studying patients' perceptions of coercion: a systematic mixed studies review.BMC psychiatry · 2014Pooled it
- Development and pilot multicentre evaluation of a patient-reported experience measure for acute ischemic stroke care.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Article
- Factors that influence the uptake of virtual care solutions in Australian primary care practice: a systematic scoping review.JBI evidence implementation · 2025Article
- Increasing clinical recruitment rate to a single-site observational study: a quality improvement study.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Recruiting participants for focus groups in health research: a meta-research study.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Intentional and actional components of engaged participation in public health research studies: qualitative synthesis of a recruitment and retention process into the theory-informed INTACT-RS framework.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- The multimorbidity collaborative medication review and decision making (MyComrade) study: a pilot cluster randomised trial in two healthcare systems.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Focus Group Discussion as a Tool to Assess Patient-Based Outcomes, Practical Tips for Conducting Focus Group Discussion for Medical Students-Learning With an Example.Journal of patient experience · 2021Article
- The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health: Using Focus Groups to Inform Recruitment.JMIR research protocols · 2016Article
- Article
- Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an automated screening algorithm in an inpatient clinical trial.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2012Article
- What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2011Article
- Patients' and clinicians' experiences of consultations in primary care for sleep problems and insomnia: a focus group study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecruiting to primary care studies is complex. With the current drive to increase numbers of patients involved in primary care studies, we need to know more about successful recruitment approaches. There is limited evidence on recruitment to focus group studies, particularly when no natural grouping exists and where participants do not regularly meet. The aim of this paper is to reflect on recruitment to a focus group study comparing the methods used with existing evidence using a resource for research recruitment, PROSPeR (Planning Recruitment Options: Strategies for Primary Care).
methodsThe focus group formed part of modelling a complex intervention in primary care in the Resources for Effective Sleep Treatment (REST) study. Despite a considered approach at the design stage, there were a number of difficulties with recruitment. The recruitment strategy and subsequent revisions are detailed.
resultsThe researchers' modifications to recruitment, justifications and evidence from the literature in support of them are presented. Contrary evidence is used to analyse why some aspects were unsuccessful and evidence is used to suggest improvements. Recruitment to focus group studies should be considered in two distinct phases; getting potential participants to contact the researcher, and converting those contacts into attendance. The difficulty of recruitment in primary care is underemphasised in the literature especially where people do not regularly come together, typified by this case study of patients with sleep problems.
conclusionWe recommend training GPs and nurses to recruit patients during consultations. Multiple recruitment methods should be employed from the outset and the need to build topic related non-financial incentives into the group meeting should be considered. Recruitment should be monitored regularly with barriers addressed iteratively as a study progresses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.