Researchers' and clinicians' perceptions of recruiting participants to clinical research: a thematic meta-synthesis

Factors that influence a patient's decision to engage in genetic research

Introduction

The most challenging step in clinical research studies is patient recruitment. Many research studies do not reach their targets because of participant rejection. The purpose of this study was to assess patient as well as the community knowledge, motivation, and barriers to participate in genetic research.

Methods

A cross-section study was conducted between September 2018 and February 2020 using face-to-face interviews with candidate patients from outpatient clinics at King Fahad Medical City (KFMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Additionally, an online survey was conducted to assess the community's knowledge, motivation and barriers to participate in genetic research studies.

Results

In total, 470 patients were interviewed for this study, with 341 being successfully recruited for the face to face interview, and the other patients being refused owing to time constraints. The majority percentage of the respondents were females. The respondents' mean age was 30, and 52.6% reported having a college degree. The survey results from 388 participants illustrated that around 90% of the participants, participated voluntarily due to a good understanding of genetics studies. The majority held positive attitudes toward being part of genetic research, which exceeded the reported motivation score of >75%. The survey indicated that >90% of individuals were willing to participate to acquire therapeutic benefits or to receive continued aftercare. However, 54.6% of survey participants were worried about the side effects and the risks involved in genetic testing. A higher proportion (71.4%) of respondents reported that lack of knowledge about genetic research was one of the barriers to rejecting participation.

Conclusion

Respondents reported relatively high motivation and knowledge for participation in genetic research. However, study participants reported "do not know enough about genetic research" and "lack of time during clinic visit" as a barrier for participation in genetic research.

Recommendations for Diversifying Racial and Ethnic Representation in Autism Intervention Research: A Crossover Review of Recruitment and Retention Practices in Pediatric Mental Health

Disparities in diagnosis and access to healthcare and therapeutic services are well-documented for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) from minoritized races and ethnicities, but there is little empirical research to guide the selection and implementation of interventions and practices that will effectively support racially/ethnically diverse children with ASD and their families. This cross-over systematic review summarizes parent-mediated intervention research of children with or at risk for mental health disorders to identify potentially effective recruitment and retention strategies for diverse participants in parent-mediated intervention research for children with autism. Electronic database keyword, lead author name searches in PyschNet, MEDLINE, and ancestral searches were conducted to identify 68 relevant articles that used experimental designs to evaluate the effects of parent-mediated interventions on children with or at risk for mental health disorders. Articles were coded for participant demographics; intervention setting and type, recruitment and retention strategies, cultural adaptation of intervention, and reported attrition. Findings are discussed and applied to practices in autism parent-mediated intervention research. Suggestions for future research and limitations are discussed.

Understanding the perspectives of recruiters is key to improving randomised controlled trial enrolment: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Background

Recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often reported to be challenging, and the evidence base for effective interventions that could be used by staff (recruiters) undertaking recruitment is lacking. Although the experiences and perspectives of recruiters have been widely reported, an evidence synthesis is required in order to inform the development of future interventions. This paper aims to address this by systematically searching and synthesising the evidence on recruiters’ perspectives and experiences of recruiting patients into RCTs. 

Methods

A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) following Thomas and Harden’s approach to thematic synthesis was conducted. The Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ORRCA and Web of Science electronic databases were searched. Studies were sampled to ensure that the focus of the research was aligned with the phenomena of interest of the QES, their methodological relevance to the QES question, and to include variation across the clinical areas of the studies. The GRADE CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in the review findings.

Results

In total, 9316 studies were identified for screening, which resulted in 128 eligible papers. The application of the QES sampling strategy resulted in 30 papers being included in the final analysis. Five overlapping themes were identified which highlighted the complex manner in which recruiters experience RCT recruitment: (1) recruiting to RCTs in a clinical environment, (2) enthusiasm for the RCT, (3) making judgements about whether to approach a patient, (4) communication challenges, (5) interplay between recruiter and professional roles.

Conclusions

This QES identified factors which contribute to the complexities that recruiters can face in day-to-day clinical settings, and the influence recruiters and non-recruiting healthcare professionals have on opportunities afforded to patients for RCT participation. It has reinforced the importance of considering the clinical setting in its entirety when planning future RCTs and indicated the need to better normalise and support research if it is to become part of day-to-day practice.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42020141297 (registered 11/02/2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06818-4.

Engaging People and Co-Producing Research with Persons and Communities to Foster Person-Centred Care: A Meta-Synthesis

Introduction: Engagement and co-production in healthcare research and innovation are crucial for delivering person-centred interventions in underserved communities, but the knowledge of effective strategies to target this population is still vague, limiting the provision of person-centred care. Our research aimed to identify essential knowledge to foster engagement and co-production. Materials and Methods: A meta-synthesis research design was used to compile existing qualitative research papers on health communication, engagement, and empowerment in vulnerable groups in high-income countries (HICs) from 2008 to 2018. A total of 23 papers were selected and analysed. Results: ‘Design and recruitment’ and ‘engagement and co-production’ thematic areas are presented considering the factors related to researcher–communities attunement and the strategical plans for conducting research. The insights are discussed in light of the literature. Long-term alliances, sustainable structures, and strengthened bonds are critical factors for producing real long-term change, empowering persons and communities, and paving the way to person-centred care. Conclusions: The enhancement of the recruitment, involvement, and empowerment of traditionally disengaged communities and individuals depends on the awareness and analysis of social determinants, power differentials and specific tactics, and the capacity of researchers and individuals to apply all these principles in real-world practice.

Recruiters' perspectives and experiences of trial recruitment processes: a qualitative evidence synthesis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Recruitment to randomised trials (RCTs) is often challenging. Reviews of interventions to improve recruitment have highlighted a paucity of effective interventions aimed at recruiters and the need for further research in this area. Understanding the perspectives and experiences of those involved in RCT recruitment can help to identify barriers and facilitators to recruitment, and subsequently inform future interventions to support recruitment. This protocol describes methods for a proposed qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) of recruiters' perspectives and experiences relating to RCT recruitment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The proposed review will synthesise studies reporting clinical and non-clinical recruiters' perspectives and experiences of recruiting to RCTs. The following databases will be searched: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ORRCA and Web of Science. A thematic synthesis approach to analysing the data will be used. An assessment of methodological limitations of each study will be performed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Assessing the confidence in the review findings will be evaluated using the GRADE Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) tool.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The proposed QES will not require ethical approval as it includes only published literature. The results of the synthesis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and publicised using social media. The results will be considered alongside other work addressing factors affecting recruitment in order to inform future development and refinement of recruitment interventions.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020141297.

Community midwives' and health visitors' experiences of research recruitment: a qualitative exploration using the Theoretical Domains Framework

BACKGROUND

Successful research is frequently hampered by poor study recruitment, especially in community settings and with participants who are women and their children. Health visitors (HVs) and community midwives (CMs) are well placed to invite young families, and pregnant and postnatal women to take part in such research, but little is known about how best to support these health professionals to do this effectively.

AIM

This study uses the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore the factors that influence whether HVs and CMs invite eligible patients to take part in research opportunities.

METHOD

HVs (n = 39) and CMs (n = 22) working in four NHS Trusts and one community partnership in England completed an anonymous, online survey with open-ended questions about their experiences of asking eligible patients to take part in the research. Qualitative data were analysed using directed content analysis and inductive coding to identify specific barriers and enablers to patient recruitment within each of the 14 theoretical domains.

FINDINGS

Six key TDF domains accounted for 81% of all coded responses. These were (a) environmental context and resources; (b) beliefs about capabilities; (c) social/professional role and identity; (d) social influences; (e) goals; (f) knowledge. Key barriers to approaching patients to participate in the research were time and resource constraints, perceived role conflict, conflicting priorities, and particularly for HVs, negative social influences from patients and researchers. Enablers included feeling confident to approach patients, positive influence from peers, managers and researchers, beliefs in the relevance of this behaviour to health care and practice and good knowledge about the study procedures, its rationale and the research topic. The findings suggest that to improve research recruitment involving HVs and CMs, a package of interventions is needed to address the barriers and leverage the enablers to participant approach.

Barriers and facilitators of clinician and researcher collaborations: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The poor translation of research findings into routine clinical practice is common in all areas of healthcare. Having a better understanding of how researchers and clinicians experience engagement in and with research, their working relationships and expectations of each other, may be one way to help to facilitate collaborative partnerships and therefore increase successful translation of research into clinical practice.

AIMS

To explore the views of clinical and research staff about their experiences of working together during research projects and identify the facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

We conducted four focus groups with 18 participants - clinicians, researchers and those with a dual clinical-research role, recruited from one mental health Trust and one university. Data was analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Eight themes were identified under the headings of two research questions 1) Barriers and facilitators of either engaging in or with research from the perspective of clinical staff, with themes of understanding the benefits of the research; perceived knowledge and personal qualities of researchers; lack of time and organisational support to be involved in and implement research; and lack of feedback about progress and outcome of research. 2) Barriers and facilitators for engaging with clinicians when conducting research, from the perspective of researchers, with themes of understanding what clinicians need to know and how they need to feel to engage with research; demonstrating an understanding of the clinician's world; navigating through the clinical world; and demands of the researcher role.

CONCLUSION

There was agreement between clinicians and researchers about the barriers and facilitators for engaging clinicians in research. Both groups identified that it was the researcher's responsibility to form and maintain good working relationships. Better support for researchers in their role calls for training in communication skills and bespoke training to understand the local context in which research is taking place.

Recruiters' perspectives of recruiting women during pregnancy and childbirth to clinical trials: A qualitative evidence synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Research on research is key to enhancing efficacy in trial methodology. Clinical trials involving women during pregnancy and childbirth are limited, with a paucity of data guiding evidence-based practice. Following a prioritisation exercise that highlighted the top-ten unanswered recruitment questions, this qualitative evidence synthesis was designed specifically to focus on the barriers and enablers for clinicians/healthcare professionals in helping conduct randomised trials within the context of recruitment during pregnancy and childbirth.

METHODS

The synthesis was undertaken using Thomas and Harden's three stage thematic synthesis method and reported following the ENTREQ guidelines. Using a pre-determined SPIDER strategy, we conducted a comprehensive search of databases; Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and grey searches for records until January 2019. We included all reports of qualitative data on recruiter's experiences, perceptions, views of recruiting women during pregnancy and childbirth to clinical trials. Altogether 13,401 records were screened, resulting in 31 full-text reviews, of which five were eligible for inclusion. Quality was appraised using CASP. Data were extracted onto a specifically defined form. We used thematic synthesis to identify descriptive and analytical themes, and to interpret and generate theory. Confidence was assessed using GRADE-CERQual. The review protocol is publicly available (OSF https://osf.io/g4dt9/).

RESULTS

Five papers (representing four individual studies) from two different countries were included. All studies focused on the experiences of trial recruiters in the maternity setting. We identified four analytical themes; Recruitment through a clinician's lens, Recruiters judgement on acceptability, From protocol to recruiters lived experience, Framing recruitment in context. These were linked by an overarching theme combining beliefs and power.

CONCLUSION

The overarching theme combining beliefs and power links the experiences and perceptions of recruiters. This synthesis shows a gap between the trial design study protocol and the recruiter's lived experience. Strategies such as collaborative trial design, mitigating gatekeeping behaviours, and training may support recruiters in their endeavour.

Patient perspectives on use of electronic health records for research recruitment

BACKGROUND

EHR phenotyping offers the ability to rapidly assemble a precisely defined cohort of patients prescreened for eligibility to participate in health-related research. Even so, stakeholders in the process must still contend with the practical and ethical challenges associated with research recruitment. Patient perspectives on these matters are particularly important given that the success of research recruitment depends on patients' willingness to participate.

METHODS

We conducted 15 focus groups (n = 110 participants) in four counties in diverse regions of the southeastern US: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Piedmont area of North Carolina. Based on a hypothetical study of a behavioral intervention for type 2 diabetes, we asked about the acceptability and appropriateness of direct investigator versus physician-mediated contact with patients for research recruitment, and whether patients should be asked to opt in or opt out of further contact in response to recruitment letters.

RESULTS

For initial contact, nearly all participants said it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients directly and three-fourths said that it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients through their physicians. When we asked which would be most appropriate, a substantial majority chose direct contact. Themes that arose in the discussion included trust and transparency, decision-making power, the effect on research, and the effect on patient care. For response expectations, the vast majority of participants said both opt-in and opt-out would be acceptable-typically finding neither especially problematic and noting that both afford patients the opportunity to make their own decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

External validity relies heavily on researchers' success enrolling eligible patients and failure to reach accrual targets is a costly and common barrier to advancing scientific knowledge. Our results suggest that patients recognize multiple advantages and disadvantages of different research recruitment strategies and place value on the implications not just for themselves, but also for researchers and healthcare providers. Our findings, including rich qualitative detail, contribute to the body of empirical and ethical literature on improving research recruitment and suggest specific ways forward as well as important areas for future research.

The interaction of personal, contextual, and study characteristics and their effect on recruitment and participation of pregnant women in research: a qualitative study in Lebanon

Background

Declining participation rates are impeding health research. Little is known about factors influencing the decision to participate in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Therefore, this paper reports on the various individual factors and their with contextual factors in influencing participation in research among pregnant women and the recommendations to enhance their recruitment in Lebanon.

Methods

This study used a qualitative research design drawing on focus groups and in-depth interviews. The Theoretical Domain Framework guided data collection and analysis. The three participant groups included: Group 1-Pregnant women (n = 25) attending public pre-natal events and antenatal clinics in Beirut; Group 2-Pregnant women (n = 6) already enrolled in the ongoing Mother and Infant Nutritional Assessment birth cohort study; Group 3-Key informants (n = 13) including health care workers involved in recruiting pregnant women. Conversations were audio recorded, transcribed, translated into English, and thematically analyzed.

Results

Three main factors influencing participation were revealed, with each factor encompassing several sub-themes: (1) personal factors (altruism, self-confidence, personal interest in the topic, previous understanding of the nature and purpose of research, education level, and previous research experience), (2) contextual factors (societal factors, family and friends), and (3) study characteristics (burden of the study, ethical considerations, incentives, and research interpersonal skills and physician endorsement to participate). The results suggested a dynamic interaction among the identified factors, forming two intersecting axes, with a four-quadrant configuration. The y- and x-axes represented personal factors and contextual factors, respectively. Individuals positioned on the lower-left quadrant were the least likely to participate; those on the upper-right quadrant were the most likely to participate; while those on the upper-left and lower-right quadrants were indecisive. Study characteristics seemed to affect the decision of pregnant women to participate situated in any of the four quadrants. Specific recommendations to improve participation were also identified.

Conclusions

Our findings suggested an interaction of personal factors, contextual factors, and study characteristics affecting subjects’ participation. This interaction integrates factors into a novel dynamic framework that could be used in future studies. The recommendations identified may help improve participation of pregnant women in health research hence enhancing the quality and generalizability of research findings in LMIC.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0616-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Strategies for recruiting a sample of adults with type 2 diabetes from primary care clinics in rural Appalachia: Incorporating cultural competence

BACKGROUND

Recruiting research participants from primary care in rural Appalachia is a major challenge and can be influenced by cultural characteristics, making it critically important to incorporate strategies of cultural competence in the overall design of clinical research.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this paper is to describe culturally competent strategies used for recruitment and data collection with a sample of adults with type 2 diabetes from primary care settings in Appalachia.

DESIGN

The Purnell model of cultural competence and relevant literature served as a framework for study design. Four overarching approaches informed the organization of recruitment strategies and development of the data collection plan.

PROCEDURES

The approaches included selection of research sites, establishing collaborations, sustaining collaborative relationships, and enhancing understanding of benefits of participation. Four recruitment sites were selected based on potential to enhance diversification of participants; multiple steps were included in each of the three remaining approaches to build relationships and gain participation. A study log was maintained to provide evaluation data.

RESULTS

Recruitment took 14 months and a sample of 102 subjects provided consent with 101 participants providing complete data. Demographics were representative of the region except that African American participation was higher (6.9%) compared to current north central Appalachia (3%). Over 72% of participants indicated they would be interested in participating in future studies.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings emphasize the importance of employing strategies for cultural competence in study design. Use of concepts from the Purnell model led to enhanced representativeness and potential for subsequent generalizability.

Patient-centered recruitment and retention for a randomized controlled study

Background

Recruitment and retention strategies for patient-centered outcomes research are evolving and research on the subject is limited. In this work, we present a conceptual model of patient-centered recruitment and retention, and describe the recruitment and retention activities and related challenges in a patient-centered comparative effectiveness trial.

Methods

This is a multicenter, longitudinal randomized controlled trial in localized prostate cancer patients.

Results

We recruited 743 participants from three sites over 15 months period (January 2014 to March 2015), and followed them for 24 months. At site 1, of the 773 eligible participants, 551 (72%) were enrolled. At site 2, 34 participants were eligible and 23 (68%) enrolled. Of the 434 eligible participants at site 3, 169 (39%) enrolled. We observed that strategies related to the concepts of trust (e.g., physician involvement, ensuring protection of information), communication (e.g., brochures and pamphlets in physicians’ offices, continued contact during regular clinic visits and calling/emailing assessment), attitude (e.g., emphasizing the altruistic value of research, positive attitude of providers and research staff), and expectations (e.g., full disclosure of study requirements and time commitment, update letters) facilitated successful patient recruitment and retention. A stakeholders’ advisory board provided important input for the recruitment and retention activities. Active engagement, reminders at the offices, and personalized update letters helped retention during follow-up. Usefulness of telephone recruitment was site specific and, at one site, the time requirement for telephone recruitment was a challenge.

Conclusions

We have presented multilevel strategies for successful recruitment and retention in a clinical trial using a patient-centered approach. Our strategies were flexible to accommodate site-level requirements. These strategies as well as the challenges can aid recruitment and retention efforts of future large-scale, patient-centered research studies.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT02032550. Registered on 22 November 2013.

Enablers and challenges to occupational therapists' research engagement: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

To develop occupational therapy's evidence base and improve its clinical outcomes, occupational therapists must increase their research involvement. Barriers to research consumption and leadership are well documented, but those relating to delivering research interventions, less so. Yet, interventions need to be researched within practice to demonstrate their clinical effectiveness. This study aims to improve understanding of challenges and enablers experienced by occupational therapists who deliver interventions within research programmes.

METHOD

Twenty-eight occupational therapists who participated in the Valuing Active Life in Dementia (VALID) research programme reported their experiences in five focus groups. Data were analysed thematically to identify key and subthemes.

RESULTS

Occupational therapists reported that overwhelming paperwork, use of videos, recruitment and introducing a new intervention challenged their research involvement, whereas support, protected time and a positive attitude enabled it. The impact of these challenges and enablers varied between therapists and organisations.

CONCLUSION

Challenges and enablers to research involvement can be identified but must be addressed within individual and organisational contexts. Multifaceted collective action to minimise challenges and maximise enablers can facilitate clinicians' involvement in research. Using this approach should enable occupational therapists to increase their research involvement, thus demonstrating the clinical effectiveness of their interventions.

'It's trying to manage the work': a qualitative evaluation of recruitment processes within a UK multicentre trial

OBJECTIVES

To explore trial site staff's perceptions regarding barriers and facilitators to local recruitment.

DESIGN

Qualitative semi-structured interviews with a range of trial site staff from four trial sites in the UK. Interviews were analysed thematically to identify common themes across sites, barriers that could be addressed and facilitators that could be shared with other sites.

PARTICIPANTS

11 members of staff from four trial sites: clinical grant Co-applicant (n=1); Principal Investigators (n=3); Consultant Urologist (n=1); Research Nurses (n=5); Research Assistant (n=1).

SETTING

Embedded within an ongoing randomised controlled trial (the TISU trial). TISU is a UK multicentre trial comparing therapeutic interventions for ureteric stones.

RESULTS

Our study draws attention to the initial and ongoing burden of trial work that is involved throughout the duration of a clinical trial. In terms of building and sustaining a research culture, trial staff described the ongoing work of engagement that was required to ensure that clinical staff were both educated and motivated to help with the process of identifying and screening potential participants. Having adequate and sufficient organisational and staffing resources was highlighted as being a necessary prerequisite to successful recruitment both in terms of accessing potentially eligible patients and being able to maximise recruitment after patient identification. The nature of the research study design can also potentially generate challenging communicative work for recruiting staff which can prove particularly problematic.

CONCLUSIONS

Our paper adds to existing research highlighting the importance of the hidden and complex work that is involved in clinical trial recruitment. Those designing and supporting the operationalisation of clinical trials must recognise and support the mitigation of this 'work'. While much of the work is likely to be contextually sensitive at the level of local sites and for individual trials, some aspects are ubiquitous issues for delivery of trials more generally.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN No 92289221; Pre-results.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

Direct access to potential research participants for a cohort study using a confidentiality waiver included in UK National Health Service legal statutes

OBJECTIVES

To describe our experience of using a confidentiality waiver (Section 251) in the National Health Service (NHS) Act to identify and recruit potential research participants to a cohort study and consider its use in a wider research context.

DESIGN

Methodological discussion.

SETTING

NHS Trusts in England.

METHODS

We established a research recruitment process with quality health (QH), administrators of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey, after an amendment to a Section 251 approval (reference number ECC-8-05d-2011). NHS Trusts agreeing to implement the process were requested to send the details of 16-24-year-olds, identified by a relevant ICD-10 code indicating a cancer diagnosis within a specified time period to QH. QH sent study information and a consent-to-be-contacted form which allowed QH to send details to BRIGHTLIGHT, for BRIGHTLIGHT to contact the treating team confirming eligibility and for an interviewer from Ipsos MORI to contact them. Written consent was to be obtained at interview.

RESULTS

The method was implemented in 98 trusts; 75 supplied patient details. QH sent information to 441 young people, of whom 64 (15%) responded. Of these, 23 had already consented to participate. Adverse events were reported by 6 (1%) invitees: 4 were distressed because they did not have cancer, their details being submitted to QH due to incorrect hospital coding, and 1 young person was distressed about their diagnosis and requested no further contact and 1 young person found out they had cancer from the invitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of Section 251 of the NHS Act (2006) to directly approach participants can facilitate recruitment to research projects where routinely collected NHS data are available to select eligible patients. The benefits of this method are that it requires fewer resources to recruit across multiple sites, and is quicker. Further information on the impact on bias and adverse event profile are required.

Health care professionals' views of the factors influencing the decision to refer patients to a stroke rehabilitation trial

Background

Effective recruitment is an essential element of successful research but notoriously difficult to achieve. This article examines health care professionals’ views on the factors influencing decision-making regarding referral to a stroke rehabilitation trial.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews and a card-sorting task were undertaken with stroke service staff in acute and community hospital trusts. Data analysis used a thematic framework approach.

Results

Twenty-seven qualified health care professionals from 12 (6 acute and 6 community) hospital trusts and one charity participated. Four main factors emerged: patient-related, professional views, the organisation and research logistics, which all contributed to staff’s decision about whether to refer patients to a trial.

Clinicians identified patient-related factors as the most frequent influence and considered themselves the patients’ advocate. They used their knowledge of the patient to anticipate the patients’ reaction to possible participation and tended to only refer those whom they perceived would respond positively.

Participants also identified experience of research, a sense of ownership of the project and a positive view of the intervention being evaluated as factors influencing referral. The need to prioritise clinical matters, meet managerial demands and cope with constant change were organisational factors impacting negatively on referral. Staff often simply forgot about recruitment in the face of other higher priorities. Quick, simple, flexible research processes that were closely aligned with existing ways of working were felt to facilitate recruitment.

Conclusions

Patient- and professional-related factors were the most frequent influence on clinicians’ recruitment decisions, which often had a ‘gate-keeping’ effect. Managerial and clinical responsibility to juggle multiple (often higher) priorities was also an important factor.

To facilitate recruitment, researchers need to develop strategies to approach potential participants as directly as possible to enable them to make their own decisions about participation; ensure that research processes are as quick and simple as possible; align with existing clinical pathways and systems; and give regular reminders and ongoing support to promote recruitment.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, 98287938. Registered 6 May 2015

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1115-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials

To successfully implement a pragmatic clinical trial, investigators need access to numerous resources, including financial support, institutional infrastructure (e.g. clinics, facilities, staff), eligible patients, and patient data. Gatekeepers are people or entities who have the ability to allow or deny access to the resources required to support the conduct of clinical research. Based on this definition, gatekeepers relevant to the US clinical research enterprise include research sponsors, regulatory agencies, payers, health system and other organizational leadership, research team leadership, human research protections programs, advocacy and community groups, and clinicians. This article provides a framework to help guide gatekeepers' decision-making related to the use of resources for pragmatic clinical trials. Relevant ethical considerations for gatekeepers include (1) concern for the interests of individuals, groups, and communities affected by the gatekeepers' decisions, including protection from harm and maximization of benefits; (2) advancement of organizational mission and values; and (3) stewardship of financial, human, and other organizational resources. Separate from these ethical considerations, gatekeepers' actions will be guided by relevant federal, state, and local regulations. This framework also suggests that to further enhance the legitimacy of their decision-making, gatekeepers should adopt transparent processes that engage relevant stakeholders when feasible and appropriate. We apply this framework to the set of gatekeepers responsible for making decisions about resources necessary for pragmatic clinical trials in the United States, describing the relevance of the criteria in different situations and pointing out where conflicts among the criteria and relevant regulations may affect decision-making. Recognition of the complex set of considerations that should inform decision-making will guide gatekeepers in making justifiable choices regarding the use of limited and valuable resources.

Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams

Background

Recruiting the required number of participants is vital to the success of clinical research and yet many studies fail to achieve their expected recruitment rate. Increasing research participation is a key agenda within the NHS and elsewhere, but the optimal methods of improving recruitment to clinical research remain elusive. The aim of this study was to identify the factors that researchers perceive as influential in the recruitment of participants to clinically focused research.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 individuals from three clinical research teams based in London. Sampling was a combination of convenience and purposive. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework method to identify key themes.

Results

Four themes were identified as influential to recruitment: infrastructure, nature of the research, recruiter characteristics and participant characteristics. The main reason individuals participate in clinical research was believed to be altruism, while logistical issues were considered important for those who declined. Suggestions to improve recruitment included reducing participant burden, providing support for individuals who do not speak English, and forming collaborations with primary care to improve the identification of, and access to, potentially eligible participants.

Conclusions

Recruiting the target number of research participants was perceived as difficult, especially for clinical trials. New and diverse strategies to ensure that all potentially eligible patients are invited to participate may be beneficial and require further exploration in different settings. Establishing integrated clinical and academic teams with shared responsibilities for recruitment may also facilitate this process. Language barriers and long journey times were considered negative influences to recruitment; although more prominent, these issues are not unique to London and are likely to be important influences in other locations.