↓ Skip to main content

Specialist nurses’ perceptions of inviting patients to participate in clinical research studies: a qualitative descriptive study of barriers and facilitators

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Specialist nurses’ perceptions of inviting patients to participate in clinical research studies: a qualitative descriptive study of barriers and facilitators
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0204-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline French, Charitini Stavropoulou

Abstract

Increasing the number of patients participating in research studies is a current priority in the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom. The role of specialist nurses in inviting patients to participate is important, yet little is known about their experiences of doing so. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of barriers and facilitators held by specialist nurses with experience of inviting adult NHS patients to a wide variety of research studies. A cross-sectional qualitative descriptive study was conducted between March and July 2015. Participants were 12 specialist nurses representing 7 different clinical specialties and 7 different NHS Trusts. We collected data using individual semi-structured interviews, and analysed transcripts using the Framework method to inductively gain a descriptive overview of barriers and facilitators. Barriers and facilitators were complex and interdependent. Perceptions varied among individuals, however barriers and facilitators centred on five main themes: i) assessing patient suitability, ii) teamwork, iii) valuing research, iv) the invitation process and v) understanding the study. Facilitators to inviting patients to participate in research often stemmed from specialist nurses' attitudes, skills and experience. Positive research cultures, effective teamwork and strong relationships between research and clinical teams at the local clinical team level were similarly important. Barriers were reported when specialist nurses felt they were providing patients with insufficient information during the invitation process, and when specialist nurses felt they did not understand studies to their satisfaction. Our study offers several new insights regarding the role of specialist nurses in recruiting patients for research. It shows that strong local research culture and teamwork overcome some wider organisational and workload barriers reported in previous studies. In addition, and in contrast to common practice, our findings suggest research teams may benefit from individualising study training and invitation procedures to specialist nurses' preferences and requirements. Findings provide a basis for reflection on practice for specialist nurses, research teams, policymakers, and all with an interest in increasing patient participation in research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 26 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 21 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 14%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 32 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,782,767
of 24,892,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#234
of 2,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,413
of 364,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,892,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.