↓ Skip to main content

Recruiting clinical personnel as research participants: a framework for assessing feasibility

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Recruiting clinical personnel as research participants: a framework for assessing feasibility
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-125
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvia J. Hysong, Kristen Broussard Smitham, Melissa Knox, Khai-El Johnson, Richard SoRelle, Paul Haidet

Abstract

Increasing numbers of research studies test interventions for clinicians in addition to or instead of interventions for patients. Although previous studies have enumerated barriers to patient enrolment in clinical trials, corresponding barriers have not been identified for enrolling clinicians as subjects. We propose a framework of metrics for evidence-based estimation of time and resources required for recruiting clinicians as research participants, and present an example from a federally funded study. Our framework proposes metrics for tracking five steps in the recruitment process: gaining entry into facilities, obtaining accurate eligibility and contact information, reaching busy clinicians, assessing willingness to participate, and scheduling participants for data collection. We analyzed recruitment records from a qualitative study exploring performance feedback at US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs); five recruiters sought to reach two clinicians at 16 facilities for a one-hour interview. Objective metrics were calculable for all five steps; metric values varied considerably across facilities. Obtaining accurate contact information slowed down recruiting the most. We conclude that successfully recruiting even small numbers of employees requires considerable resourcefulness and more calendar time than anticipated. Our proposed framework provides an empirical basis for estimating research-recruitment timelines, planning subject-recruitment strategies, and assessing the research accessibility of clinical sites.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Social Sciences 10 16%
Psychology 9 14%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 12 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 November 2013.
All research outputs
#12,324,617
of 22,053,897 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,284
of 1,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,784
of 209,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#95
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,053,897 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 209,282 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.