Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32522265›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Challenges of recruiting emergency department patients to a qualitative study: a thematic analysis of researchers' experiences.

Delyth Price, Michelle Edwards, Andrew Carson-Stevens, Alison Cooper, Freya Davies, Bridie Evans, Peter Hibbert, Thomas Hughes, Tim Rainer, Niro Siriwardena and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Improving prehospital and emergency care for patients with mental dysregulation: a comprehensive research agenda.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Implementing public involvement throughout the research process-Experience and learning from the GPs in EDs study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Delyth PriceDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales. priced15@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4659-2908
Michelle EdwardsDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Andrew Carson-StevensDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Alison CooperDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Freya DaviesDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Bridie EvansSwansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales.
Peter HibbertCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Thomas HughesEmergency Department, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England.
Tim RainerDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Niro SiriwardenaCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, England.
Adrian EdwardsDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Cardiff University · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBMacquarie University · AUSwansea University · GBUniversity of Lincoln · GB

Funding

Department of Health 15/145/04Health Services and Delivery Research Programme 15/145/04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAt times of increasing pressure on emergency departments, and the need for research into different models of service delivery, little is known about how to recruit patients for qualitative research in emergency departments. We report from one study which aimed to collect evidence on patients' experiences of attending emergency departments with different models of using general practitioners, but faced challenges in recruiting patients. This paper aims to identify and reflect on the challenges faced at all stages of patient recruitment, from identifying and inviting eligible patients, consenting them for participation and finally to engaging them in interviews, and make recommendations based on our learning.

methodsA thematic analysis was carried out on field-notes taken during research visits and meeting minutes of discussions to review and improve patient recruitment throughout the study.

resultsThe following factors influenced the success of patient recruitment in the emergency department setting: complicated or time-consuming electronic health record systems for identifying patients; narrow participant eligibility criteria; limited research nurse support; and lack of face-to-face communication between researchers and eligible patients.

conclusionsThis paper adds to the methodological evidence for improving patient recruitment in different settings, with a focus on qualitative research in emergency departments. Our findings have implications for future studies attempting to recruit patients in similar settings.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalResearch PersonnelCommunicationHumansPatient SelectionQualitative ResearchEmergency departmentPatient experiencePatient recruitment challengesQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID32522265
PMCPMC7288546
OpenAlexW3034162995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.