↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and facilitators to patient recruitment to a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care: lessons for future trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Barriers and facilitators to patient recruitment to a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care: lessons for future trials
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0012-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliet M Foster, Susan M Sawyer, Lorraine Smith, Helen K Reddel, Tim Usherwood

Abstract

Primary-care based randomized controlled trials (RCTs) build an important evidence base for general practice but little evidence exists about barriers to recruitment which often hamper such trials. We investigated the issues that impeded and facilitated recruitment to a clinical trial in general practice. GPs participating in a cluster RCT that tested interventions for improving medication adherence and asthma control completed a survey comprising quantitative and free text questions about their recruitment experiences. We used backward regression to analyze quantitative data and coded free text responses into themes. 40/55 of enrolled GPs recruited patients, but only one-third reached the planned recruitment target (5 patients/GP). In univariate analyses, poor patient recruitment by GPs was significantly associated with longer time to first patient enrolment, GP-perceived poor access to eligible patients and GP working in a practice training medical students. In regression analysis, only the first was significant (p = 0.001); the explained variance of the model was 48%. Themes from free text responses described recruitment barriers at the level of GP (e.g. GPs excluding patients for whom research appeared too challenging), practice (e.g. practice cultures disempowered GPs), patient (e.g. reluctance to change treatment for research) and study (e.g. protocol requirements complicating recruitment). Facilitators included GPs perceiving good support from the research team. Targeted recruitment support early in the recruitment phase may enhance recruitment rates. Over time, interventions to enhance a general practice research culture are also likely to enhance skills to recruit patients, even for complex interventions. We recommend systematic evaluation of recruitment approaches and outcomes in future RCTs to optimize feasibility and success of these important trials. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000854033 (date registered 14/10/2010).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 112 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 24%
Researcher 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Lecturer 5 4%
Student > Bachelor 3 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 28 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Psychology 9 8%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 27 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,818,336
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,441
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,151
of 259,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 259,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.