ArticlePloS one2024
Exploring barriers to care home research recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic: The influence of social media recruitment posts and public sentiment.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Determining the Key Education Priorities Related to Heart Failure Care in Nursing Homes: A Modified Delphi Approach.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecruitment of care home staff to research studies is recognised as challenging. This was further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated negative media portrayal of care home workers. Social media use has surged since the onset of COVID-19 lockdowns, offering a plausible approach to understanding the barriers to care home research recruitment and gaining insight into public perceptions of care home workers.
aimTo utilise comments from two Facebook recruitment posts to: 1) gain an understanding of potential barriers to recruitment of healthcare workers (HCWs) in UK care homes, and 2) explore public sentiment towards care home research and care homes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsThis cross-sectional study analysed comments from two Facebook posts (available June-October 2021) advertising a separate study on psychological support for care staff during the pandemic. This study was situated within a larger investigation into the mental health and wellbeing of care home staff and employed both qualitative analysis and quantitative methods (word count and correlations between words used and between posts).
resultsThree themes were identified from the qualitative analysis: support, mistrust and blame. There was a greater use of words associated with support and negative emotive words in post 2. Post 2 comments featured significantly more choice words and first-person singular pronouns than post 1 which indicated a resentful sentiment from those who advocate freedom of choice and control. Discussion of mistrust towards researchers was most prominent in post 1 indicating the importance of relationship building between researchers and HCWs in UK care homes. With attribution to blame, there was a larger range of negative emotion words than positive emotion words. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionTaken together our findings offer novel insights into why recruitment to care home research during the pandemic including the use of social media might be problematic. Social media is a useful tool for recruitment but should not be considered as a one-time input. Researchers should pro-actively engage with the study population from the start using co-design with resident and public groups to support recruitment and ensure these populations are accurately represented within research.
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.