ArticleBMC health services research2025
Taxonomy of chronic illness research recruitment: a restricted scoping review.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unravelling the relationship between exercise-induced affective responses and daily physical activity in people with chronic diseases: Spillover or confounding effect?British journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- Use of the chronic illness research recruitment taxonomy to evaluate recruitment strategies in an eHealth feasibility study.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic illness prevalence is increasing and research recruitment in these populations remains challenging. Individuals with chronic illness often have poorer quality of life, restricted access to hospitals where research occurs, and can be reluctant to participate. Researchers need multiple simultaneous strategies to achieve success. No taxonomy of recruitment factors in chronic illness research could be identified in the literature. This paper aims to describe a comprehensive taxonomy of recruitment for chronic illness research (inclusive of a nursing focus) to inform the design and reporting of recruitment strategies by creating a list of practical questions.
methodsA restricted scoping review was conducted on articles reporting on recruitment factors in chronic illness research. Main search restrictions were the number of years and databases searched with broad eligibility criteria. Included articles were critically assessed and data extracted. A code book was used to examine findings and results sections line by line, both deductively and inductively. The final codebook and the content of the codes informed the taxonomy construction and the practical questions.
resultsCore components of research recruitment were identified as people, place, and project. The component of People included factors of researchers, clinicians, recruiters, and participants roles. The component of Place included factors of national or local research oversight institutions, healthcare environments, and community spaces. Finally, the component of Project included factors of research design, participant research journey, and research promotion. The final taxonomy informed a practical list of questions to aid researchers in the design and reporting of research recruitment strategies.
conclusionsThe chronic illness research recruitment taxonomy describes and characterises factors reported to impact on research recruitment. It provides a framework for designing and reporting on recruitment strategies. While the taxonomy requires further testing, it is the first to offer a broad characterisation of recruitment factors in chronic illness 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.