Reducing systematic bias in studies of general practitioners: the use of a medical peer in the recruitment of general practitioners in research

Abstract

Reducing systematic bias in any group of study participants should be a priority of any researcher. This can be achieved by ensuring the sampling framework is adequate and by increasing response rates. Response rates in studies of general practitioners have to date tended to be low. Generalization of results to the wider population of GPs is therefore reduced. This paper systematically examines those factors which can reduce bias, recognising accurate identification of the target population, gaining good access to respondents, and maximising response rates as crucial factors. The importance of a medical peer in recruitment is examined. Applying these factors to a study situation, three different recruitment strategies were tested. As the strategy improved, there was an incremental improvement in the response rate (44%, 67%, 78%). These results indicate that by specifically addressing strategies which facilitate access to the target population, and increase the legitimacy and credibility of the study, significant improvements in response rates can be achieved.

Use of research by the Australian health promotion workforce

“…Given the limited response rate of this group during previous research [39], and the fact that follow up of non-responders was not possible due to their anonymity, rather than random sampling from the membership list, the complete list was included. Other strategies designed to encourage participation included use of an incentive (a chance to win a book or win a voucher to the value of A $250) [40], the use of an electronic questionnaire rather than a traditional paper-based survey [41,42] and inclusion of a statement of endorsement and support for the research project from the President of the AHPA [43].…”

Der feste Patientenstamm als potentielle Fallgrube prospektiver Studien im primärärztlichen Sektor

“…In der Literatur sind einige Ursachen wie "Motivation der Ärzte für die Teilnahme an Studien", "bestehende Arbeitsüberlastung" oder "zusätzlicher büro-kratischer Aufwand durch Studien" beschrieben [1,2]. Zudem scheinen die externe Unterstützung der Ärzte durch die Studienleitung, der Nutzen der jeweiligen Forschung in der Praxis sowie die Relevanz und Akzeptanz der Themen wichtige Rollen bei der erfolgreichen Durchführung von Stu dien im ambulanten Sektor zu spielen [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Des Weiteren müssen mögliche Stör-größen (Confounder) wie Alter, Geschlecht, sozioökonomischer Status und Verzerrungen bei der Auswahl von Studienteilnehmern z.B.…”

Recruiting and retaining general practitioners to a primary care asthma-intervention study in Australia

“…Specifically, having a medical peer telephone a GP's surgery greatly simplified access to the practice, a finding that has been previously noted (Veitch et al 2001;Sellors et al 2002;Ellis et al 2007). Reasons why the medical-peer approach works is the ability to pass the practice 'gatekeeper', usually a receptionist, because of their respect and credibility (Heywood et al 1995) and the strength of their personal networks and relationships (Asch et al 2000). A potential drawback of this approach is that GPs may find it hard to say no to a peer at the beginning with time then wasted on a participant who later withdraws (Goodyear-Smith et al 2009).…”