Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35658160›Full record

ReviewThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016

Strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies.

Nancy J Preston, Morag C Farquhar, Catherine E Walshe, Clare Stevinson, Gail Ewing, Lynn A Calman, Sorrel Burden, Christine Brown Wilson, Jane B Hopkinson, Chris Todd

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Nancy J PrestonLancaster University, International Observatory on End of Life Care, Furness College, Lancaster, UK, LA1 4YG.
Morag C FarquharUniversity of Cambridge, Public Health & Primary Care, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK, CB2 0SR.
Catherine E WalsheFaculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, International Observatory on End of Life Care, Bailrigg, Lancaster, Lancashire, UK, LA1 4YG.
Clare StevinsonLoughborough University, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough, Leicester, UK, LE11 3TU.
Gail EwingUniversity of Cambridge, Centre for Family Research, Free School Lane, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK, CB2 3RF.
Lynn A CalmanUniversity of Southampton, Macmillan Survivorship Research Group, Heath Sciences Building 67, Highfield Campus, University Road, Southampton, UK, SO17 1BJ.
Sorrel BurdenUniversity of Manchester, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Room 6.32, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK, M13 9PL.
Christine Brown WilsonThe University of Queensland, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Chamberlain Building, St. Lucia, Brisbane St Lucia, Australia, 4067.
Jane B HopkinsonCardiff University, School of Healthcare Sciences, College of Bio-medical and Life Sciences, Eastgate House, 35-43 Newport Road, Cardiff, Wales, UK, CF24 0AB.
Chris ToddUniversity of Manchester, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Room 6.32, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK, M13 9PL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID35658160
PMCPMC8190980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.