↓ Skip to main content

Projection of participant recruitment to primary care research: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Projection of participant recruitment to primary care research: a qualitative study
Published in
Trials, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-1002-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

David White, Daniel Hind

Abstract

Recruitment to clinical trials remains a challenge, particularly in primary care settings. Initial projections of participant recruitment need to be as accurate as possible in order to avoid the financial, clinical and ethical costs of trial extensions or failures. However, estimation of recruitment rates is challenging and often poorly executed, if attempted at all. We used qualitative methods to explore the experiences and views of researchers on the planning of recruitment in this setting. Participants had registered accrual to a UK-based primary care research study between April 2009 and March 2012. We conducted nine interviews with chief investigators or study managers, using a semi-structured topic guide. Analysis was conducted using the framework approach. Three themes are presented: 1) the factors affecting recruitment rates, 2) the use of planning techniques, and 3) influences on poor estimation. 1) A large number of factors affecting recruitment rates were discussed, including those relating to the study protocol, the clinical setting and the research setting. Use of targeted mail-outs to invite apparently eligible individuals to participate was preferred in order to eliminate some of the uncertainty in the recruitment rate associated with opportunistic clinician referrals. 2) The importance of pilot work was stressed. We identified significant uncertainty as to how best to schedule trial timelines to maximise efficiency. 3) Several potential sources of bias involved in the estimation of recruitment rates were explored and framed as technological, psychological or political factors. We found a large number of factors that interviewees felt impact recruitment rates to primary care research and highlighted the complexity of realistic estimation. Suitable early planning of the recruitment process is essential, and there may be potential to improve the projection of trial timelines by reducing biases involved in the process. Further research is needed to develop formal approaches that would be suitable for use in this setting.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 26%
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Psychology 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 6 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 October 2015.
All research outputs
#3,856,288
of 15,045,928 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,491
of 3,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,846
of 284,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#155
of 494 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,045,928 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,919 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 284,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 494 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.