scholarly journals Recruiting and retaining general practitioners to a primary care asthma-intervention study in Australia

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Smita Shah ◽  
Jessica K. Roydhouse ◽  
Brett G. Toelle ◽  
Craig M. Mellis ◽  
Christine R. Jenkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Independent Research ◽  
Project Staff ◽  
Recruitment Methods ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
First Contact

The need for more evidence-based interventions in primary care is clear. However, it is challenging to recruit general practitioners (GPs) for interventional research. This paper reports on the evaluation of three methods of recruitment that were sequentially used to recruit GPs for a randomised controlled trial of an asthma communication and education intervention in Australia. The recruitment methods (RMs) were: general practices were contacted by project staff from a Department of General Practice, University of Sydney (RM1); general practices were contacted by staff from an independent research organisation (RM2); and general practices were contacted by a medical peer (chief investigator) (RM3). A GP was defined as ‘recruited’ once they consented and were randomised to a group, and ‘retained’ if they provided baseline data and did not notify staff of their intention to withdraw at any time during the 12-month study. RM1 was used for the first 6 months, during which 34 (4%) GPs were recruited and 21 (62%) retained from a total of 953 invitations. RM2 was then used for the next 5 months, during which 32 (6%) GPs were recruited and 26 (81%) were retained. Finally over the next 7 months, RM3 recruited 84 (12%) GPs and retained 75 (89%) GPs. In conclusion, use of a medical peer as the first contact was associated with the highest recruitment and retention rate.

scholarly journals Acceptability of a vocational advice service for patients consulting in primary care with musculoskeletal pain: A qualitative exploration of the experiences of general practitioners, vocational advisers and patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Sanders ◽  
Gwenllian Wynne-Jones ◽  
Bie Nio Ong ◽  
Majid Artus ◽  
Nadine Foster
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Constant Comparative Method ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Qualitative Exploration

Aims: Using qualitative interviews, this study explored the experiences of GPs, vocational advisers and patients towards a new vocational advice (VA) service in primary care. Methods: This study was nested within the Study of Work and Pain (SWAP) cluster randomised controlled trial. The SWAP trial located a VA service within three general practices in Staffordshire. Interviews took place with 10 GPs 12 months after the introduction of the VA service, four vocational advisers whilst the VA service was running and 20 patients on discharge from the VA service. The data were analysed using the constant comparative method, which is a variation of grounded theory. Results: The key factors determining the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the VA service from the perspective of the three groups of stakeholders were (1) the timing of referrals to the VA, (2) the perceived lack of patient demand for the service and (3) role uncertainty experienced by VAs. Conclusions: Early vocational intervention may not be appropriate for all musculoskeletal patients with work difficulties. Indeed, many patients felt they did not require the support of a VA, either because they had self-limiting work difficulties and/or already had support mechanisms in place to return to work. Future VA interventions may be better implemented in a targeted way so that appropriate patients are identified with characteristics which can best be addressed by the VA service.

scholarly journals Recruiting general practitioners and patients with dementia into a cluster randomised controlled trial: strategies, barriers and facilitators

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonia Lech ◽  
Julie L. O’Sullivan ◽  
Leonard Wellmann ◽  
Juliana Supplieth ◽  
Susanne Döpfmer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Recruitment of general practitioners (GPs) and their patients is reported as one of the most challenging steps when undertaking primary care research. The present paper describes the recruitment process of a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aiming to improve dementia care in the primary care setting. Methods Recruitment data was analysed descriptively using frequency tables to investigate comparisons of recruitment rates and results of different recruitment strategies as well as reasons for participation and non-participation of GPs, patients with dementia (PwD) and their caregivers. Results Over a period of 23 months, N = 28 GPs were successfully included in the cRCT. This represents an overall recruitment rate of 4.6%. The most efficient strategy in terms of high response and low labour-intensity involved the dissemination of calls for participation in a GP research network. Most frequently reported reasons for GP’s participation were Improvement of patient’s well-being (n = 22, 79%) followed by Interest in dementia research (n = 18, 64%). The most common reasons for non-participation were Lack of time (n = 71, 34%) followed by Not interested in participation (n = 63, 30%). On a patient level, N = 102 PwD were successfully recruited. On average, each GP referred about n = 7 PwD (range: 1–17; mdn = 6; IQR = 3.5) and successfully recruited about n = 4 PwD (range: 1–11; mdn = 3; IQR = 3.5). Conclusion First, our findings propose GP research networks as a promising strategy to promote recruitment and participation of GPs and their patients in research. Second, present findings highlight the importance of including GPs and their interests in specific research topics in early stages of research in order to ensure a successful recruitment. Finally, results do not support cold calls as a successful strategy in the recruitment of GPs. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry (Trial registration number: ISRCTN15854413). Registered 01 April 2019.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document