ArticleBMJ open2024
A qualitative exploration of challenges recruiting older adults for
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recruitment and Participation of Black Home Health Care Patients in Speech-Based Cognitive Research: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Conceptualization and implementation of community social prescribing evaluation: a case study of the co-designedFrontiers in public health · 2026Article
- On the edge of dependency: how older adults with rheumatoid arthritis experience living with frailty.EULAR rheumatology open · 2025Article
- Challenges and Recommendations for Proxy Reporting in Aging Research: A Brief Commentary.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesResearchers face numerous challenges when recruiting participants for health and social care research. This study reports on the challenges faced recruiting older adults for
designA qualitative study design was used. Referrer interviews were conducted to explore the recruitment challenges faced by the frontline workers. An audit of the research participant (aged ≥65) database was also undertaken to evaluate the reasons for refusal to participate and withdrawal from the study.
settingHospital emergency departments (EDs) and a home care provider in Melbourne, Australia.
participantsFrontline workers and older adults.
resultsFrom May 2022 to June 2023, 71 referrals were received. Of those referrals, only 13 (18.3%) agreed to participate. Three participants withdrew immediately after baseline data collection, and the remaining 10 continued to participate in the programme. Reasons for older adult non-participation were (1) health issues (25.3%), (2) ineligibility (18.3%), (3) lack of interest (15.5%), (4) perceptions of being 'too old' (11.2%) and (5) perceptions of being too busy (5.6%). Of those participating, five were female and five were male. Eleven referrer interviews were conducted to explore challenges with recruitment, and three themes were generated after thematic analysis: (1) challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) characteristics of the programme and (3) health of older adults.
conclusionDespite using multiple strategies, recruitment was much lower than anticipated. The ED staff were at capacity associated with pandemic-related activities. While EDs are important sources of participants for research, they were not suitable recruitment sites at the time of this study, due to COVID-19-related challenges. Programme screening characteristics and researchers' inability to develop rapport with potential participants also contributed to low recruitment numbers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620000533998; Pre-results.
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.