↓ Skip to main content

In for a penny, in for a pound: the effect of pre-engaging healthcare organizations on their subsequent participation in trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
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
In for a penny, in for a pound: the effect of pre-engaging healthcare organizations on their subsequent participation in trials
Published in
BMC Research Notes, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1743-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mirjam M. Garvelink, Adriana Freitas, Matthew Menear, Nathalie Brière, Dawn Stacey, France Légaré

Abstract

Participant recruitment in clinical trials is often challenging. Building partnerships with healthcare organizations during proposal development facilitates access to the community and may influence its subsequent organization participation and participant recruitment. We aimed to assess how pre-engaging directors of homecare organizations influenced organization participation in a subsequent trial. Repeated cross-sectional study prior to a cluster randomized controlled trial involving 33 eligible Health and Social Services Centres (HSSCs). During proposal development, we asked eligible HSSC directors in a randomized order about their willingness to participate in our trial, if funded. In the pre-engagement phase, 23 directors were contacted until we met sample size requirements (n ≥ 16); 19 of whom wrote letters of intent. Once funded, we contacted all 33 eligible HSSC directors in a randomized order to enroll them. Of the 19 directors who provided letters of intent, 15 agreed to participate (79 %); of the four who did not provide letters, one agreed to participate (25 %); and of the ten who had not been approached in the pre-engagement phase, two agreed to participate (20 %). Fisher exact tests indicated that providing letters of intent was associated with subsequent participation (p = 0.003). Given that significantly more HSSCs directors who signed letters of intent followed through with study participation, pre-engagement with trial sites during proposal development appears to improve recruitment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,755,290
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,263
of 4,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,625
of 392,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#42
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,305 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 392,189 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 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.