ArticleSAGE open medicine2016
Recruitment of general practices: Is a standardised approach helpful in the involvement of healthcare professionals in research?
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of electronic recruitment efforts of primary care providers as research subjects during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC primary care · 2022Trial
- Recruiting patients with persistent physical symptoms and no specific diagnosis for clinical trials in primary care: a qualitative study of four scenarios.Primary health care research & development · 2025Article
- Identifying health research in the era of COVID-19: A scoping review.SAGE open medicine · 2023Article
- Reflections on recruiting healthcare professionals as research participants: Learning from the ONSPres Study.HRB open research · 2022Article
- The Adolescent Knee Pain (AK-Pain) prognostic tool: protocol for a prospective cohort study.F1000Research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth service research often involves the active participation of healthcare professionals. However, their ability and commitment to research varies. This can cause recruitment difficulties and thereby prolong the study period and inflate budgets. Solberg has identified seven R-factors as determinants for successfully recruiting healthcare professionals: relationships, reputation, requirements, rewards, reciprocity, resolution, and respect.
methodThis is a process evaluation of the seven R-factors. We applied these factors to guide the design of our recruitment strategy as well as to make adjustments when recruiting general practices in a guideline implementation study. In the guideline implementation study, we studied the effect of outreach visits, quality reports, and new patient stratification tools for low back pain patients.
resultsDuring a period of 15 months, we recruited 60 practices, which was fewer than planned (100 practices). In this evaluation, five of Solberg's seven R-factors were successfully addressed and two factors were not. The need to involve (reciprocity) end users in the development of new software and the amount of time needed to conduct recruitment (resolution) were underestimated.
conclusionThe framework of the seven R-factors was a feasible tool in our recruitment process. However, we suggest further investigation in developing systematic approaches to support the recruitment of healthcare professionals to research.
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.