ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2016
Understanding practice-based research participation: The differing motivations of engaged vs. non-engaged clinicians in pragmatic clinical trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Embedding mentoring to support trial processes and implementation fidelity in a randomised controlled trial of vocational rehabilitation for stroke survivors.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Recruitment for a digitally based follow-up program for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Article
- After the green light: Evaluating drugs in Phase IV studies.Indian journal of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Design and Performance of an Email-Based Patient Recruitment Campaign in Primary Care Research: Formative Secondary Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Building a national headache medicine research network: The BE WELL with Migraine Champion Providers Network™.Headache · 2026Article
- Characteristics of clinical trials associated with appeal and return on investment to participants: a review and framework.The oncologist · 2025Review
- Two sides of the same coin: recruitment performance and perceived workload in primary care trials-insights from the AgeWell.de study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Novel approaches to recruiting clinical sites for embedded pragmatic clinical trials: Insights from the AIM-back trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Exploring participants' characteristics and self-assessed readiness to conduct clinical trials in general practice - baseline analysis of the RaPHaeL practice-based research network.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Primary care involvement in clinical research - prerequisites, motivators, and barriers: results from a study series.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Article
- Experiences with Innovation Fund healthcare models in primary care: a qualitative study amongst German general practitioners.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Clinical trial recruitment in primary care: exploratory factor analysis of a questionnaire to measure barriers and facilitators to primary care providers' involvement.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- [The German Innovation Fund and primary care-What expectations and experiences do general practitioners have with regard to participating in innovative care models?]Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022Article
- One size does not fit all: Insights for engaging front-line clinicians in pragmatic clinical trials.Learning health systems · 2021Article
- Using Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand implementation of a pragmatic clinical trial in Public Dental Service in Norway.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Music Therapist Experiences of a Randomized Controlled Trial as Clinician Researchers.Journal of music therapy · 2020Article
- Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review of prescription practices and use in primary care.Clinical kidney journal · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsPragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) represent an increasingly used strategy for "real-world" trials. Successful PCTs typically require participation of community-based practices. However, community clinicians often have limited interest or experience in clinical research. Many barriers to practice-based research have been described, but possible motivations to participate among community practices not active in research have not been well explored. The tendency is for researchers to assume similar motivations and priorities across all candidate practices. This is not necessarily the case. A better understanding of the range of reasons clinicians might see for participating in pragmatic trials could be key to promoting this type of practice-based research.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 clinicians and staff members. Half of the interviewees had experience doing practice-based clinical trials and half did not. Individuals in these two groups were also diversified in terms of their practice size and location. Participants were asked about motivations and barriers to doing practice-based research in the context of a planned osteoporosis pragmatic clinical trial. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed.
resultsBarriers identified for both experienced and not-experienced clinicians and staff members included: a lack of time, increased paperwork, disruption to work flows, and concern over practice finances. Similar findings have been reported in the US, UK, Europe, and Australia. However, regarding positive motivations of practices to participate, we found systematic differences in attitude between research-engaged and research-naïve practices that have not been previously reported. The research-experienced group offered a greater number and variety of reasons to take part than the not-experienced group. While both groups expressed motivations related to patient care, clinicians and staff members experienced in practice-based clinical trials were much more likely to cite intellectual, professional, and societal benefits not envisioned by the other group.
conclusionsWe conclude that clinicians not already participating in practice-based trials may have a narrower range of motivations than those already participating. The lack of a broader view of possible benefits to participation may also translate into more obdurate recruiting challenges. These results point to the need for recruitment, engagement, and messaging approaches differentially tailored to the needs and interests of non-participating practices.
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.