UK research staff perspectives on improving recruitment and retention to primary care research; nominal group exercise

Abstract

Research workers taking part identified factors which might be important in recruitment, several of which they expressed little confidence in addressing. Understanding how to improve recruitment is crucial if current efforts to strengthen primary care research are to bear fruit.

Use of strategies to improve retention in primary care randomised trials: a qualitative study with in-depth interviews

“…Research on strategies to improve retention of participants in primary care trials is limited and commonly grouped with recruitment strategies 14 15. Trial retention is important because loss to follow-up can lead to incomplete data for the primary outcome, bias results and impact the generalisability of trial findings.…”

An evaluation of the impact and costs of three strategies used to recruit acutely unwell young children to a randomised controlled trial in primary care

“…The three recruitment strategies incorporated many of the factors that the literature states are effective in improving recruitment rates, such as establishing good relationships with practices, simplifying referrals, being flexible, using multiple strategies to recruit, good trial organisation, offering enhanced care by using nurses with specialties in the illness investigated, and visiting families shortly after enrolment [4][5][6][7][8][9][11][12][13][14]18,21]. Our trial experience supports observations made by other trialists regarding the value of different recruitment strategies and methods [4][5][6][7][8][9][11][12][13][14]18,21,23,27]. However, these factors also may have been features of trials that failed to reach their recruitment targets, highlighting the need for more evidence to inform strategy selection [10] and to identify the most productive and successful recruitment strategies.…”

“…Some reports highlight alternative methods regarding how to improve recruitment including using qualitative methods [15,16] and working closely with country-wide clinical research networks [10]. However, primary care trialists often report challenges in engaging both participants and GP practices [5][6][7][8][9]11]; thus, there is a pressing need for more evidence-based strategies [2,4,5,10,17].…”

Research Priorities for Syndromic Surveillance Systems Response

“…This approach has been successfully applied in public health and health care to set priorities, develop consensus statements and research agendas, and advance new guidelines. [16][17][18] It is an ordered, transparent, and replicable way of generating and synthesizing ideas and can integrate both evidence and opinion. 16,17,19 A hybrid of the Delphi process and focus groups, 20 the advantages of the NGT include capacity to translate qualitative data to quantitative data and assurance of equal participation of every voice (via anonymous rating and ranking), thus limiting the impact of individuals on other's final judgments.…”

“…16,17,19 A hybrid of the Delphi process and focus groups, 20 the advantages of the NGT include capacity to translate qualitative data to quantitative data and assurance of equal participation of every voice (via anonymous rating and ranking), thus limiting the impact of individuals on other's final judgments. 17,18,20 To evaluate gaps in research regarding response to syndromic surveillance, we undertook the final step of a multiphase study. 4,10,21 Earlier phases of our work (which we have reported on previously) included the following aims: to describe existing infrastructure and challenges associated with methods of response to alerts generated by syndromic surveillance systems and to provide a pilot guidance framework for developing written response protocols.…”