ReviewJournal of occupational rehabilitation2016
Participant Recruitment for Studies on Disability and Work: Challenges and Solutions.
Review in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disability and sex/gender intersections in unmet workplace support needs: Findings from a large Canadian survey of workers.American journal of industrial medicine · 2021Article
- The working disadvantaged: the role of age, job tenure and disability in precarious work.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Development of an occupational advice intervention for patients undergoing elective hip and knee replacement: a Delphi study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Effects of Vocational Re-training on Employment Outcomes Among Persons with Disabilities in Germany: A Quasi-Experiment.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose A number of key issues related to employment of persons with disabilities demand ongoing and effective lines of inquiry. There is evidence, however, that work researchers struggle with recruitment of participants, and that this may limit the types and appropriateness of methods selected. This two phase study sought to identify the nature of recruitment challenges in workplace-based disability research, and to identify strategies for addressing identified barriers. Methods The first phase of this study was a scoping review of the literature to identify the study designs and approaches frequently used in this field of inquiry, and the success of the various recruitment methods in use. In the second phase, we used qualitative methods to explore with employers and other stakeholders in the field their perceived challenges related to participating in disability-related research, and approaches that might address these. Results The most frequently used recruitment methods identified in the literature were non-probability approaches for qualitative studies, and sampling from existing worker databases for survey research. Struggles in participant recruitment were evidenced by the use of multiple recruitment strategies, and heavy reliance on convenience sampling. Employers cited a number of barriers to participation, including time pressures, fear of legal reprisal, and perceived lack of relevance to the organization. Conclusions Participant recruitment in disability-related research is a concern, particularly in studies that require collection of new data from organizations and individuals, and where large probability samples and/or stratified or purposeful samples are desirable. A number of strategies may contribute to improved success, including development of participatory research models that will enhance benefits and perceived benefits of workplace involvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26179463What 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.