ReviewThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016
Strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies.
Review in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A systematic review of recruitment and retention of ethnic minorities and migrants in obesity prevention randomised controlled trials.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2024Pooled it
- Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Healthy Eating and Active Lifestyle after Bowel Cancer (HEAL ABC)-feasibility randomised controlled trial.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2024Trial
- HIP Fracture REhabilitation Program for older adults with hip fracture (HIP-REP) based on activity of daily living: a feasibility study.BMC geriatrics · 2022Trial
- Recruitment and enrollment of participants in an online diabetes self-management intervention in a virtual environment.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Trial
- Trial
- A pragmatic, multi-centered, stepped wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial pilot of the clinical and cost effectiveness of a complex Stroke Oral healthCare intervention pLan Evaluation II (SOCLE II) compared with usual oral healthcare in stroke wards.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Spanish Translation, Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Person-Centred Practice Inventory-Care (PCPI-C): Enhancing Collaborative Care and Patient Involvement.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Between a rock and a hard place: balancing roles of clinician and co-researcher in a primary health care setting - A qualitative study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- Demystifying financial toxicity measures: semi-structured interviews comparing COST-FACIT and ENRICh among cancer survivors on targeted oral anticancer medications (TOAMs).Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Barriers and Strategies for Recruiting Care Partners During the Hospitalization of People Living with Dementia: Lessons from a Hospital-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical trial participant information leaflets overstate the harms/risks of participation and understate the benefits.PloS one · 2026Article
- Enhancing Outpatient Clinic Recruitment: A Quality Improvement Strategy for a Prospective Research Study.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Review
- Virtual reality for relaxation in intensive care unit patients: feasibility, acceptability and intervention adaptation.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying and approaching eligible participants for recruitment to research studies usually relies on healthcare professionals. This process is sometimes hampered by deliberate or inadvertent gatekeeping that can introduce bias into patient selection.
objectivesOur primary objective was to identify and assess the effect of strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies. SEARCH
methodsWe performed searches on 5 January 2015 in the following electronic databases: Cochrane Methodology Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, PsycINFO, ASSIA and Web of Science (SSCI, SCI-EXPANDED) from 1985 onwards. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant review articles and did citation tracking through Web of Science for all included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all studies that evaluated a strategy to identify and recruit participants for research via healthcare professionals and provided pre-post comparison data on recruitment rates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for potential eligibility, read full papers, applied the selection criteria and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios for each study to indicate the effect of each strategy. MAIN
resultsEleven studies met our eligibility criteria and all were at medium or high risk of bias. Only five studies gave the total number of participants (totalling 7372 participants). Three studies used a randomised design, with the others using pre-post comparisons. Several different strategies were investigated. Four studies examined the impact of additional visits or information for the study site, with no increases in recruitment demonstrated. Increased recruitment rates were reported in two studies that used a dedicated clinical recruiter, and five studies that introduced an automated alert system for identifying eligible participants. The studies were embedded into trials evaluating care in oncology mainly but also in emergency departments, diabetes and lower back pain. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is no strong evidence for any single strategy to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants in research studies. Additional visits or information did not appear to increase recruitment by healthcare professionals. The most promising strategies appear to be those with a dedicated resource (e.g. a clinical recruiter or automated alert system) for identifying suitable participants that reduced the demand on healthcare professionals, but these were assessed in studies at high risk of bias.
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.