↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
Title
Strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000036.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy J Preston, Morag C Farquhar, Catherine E Walshe, Clare Stevinson, Gail Ewing, Lynn A Calman, Sorrel Burden, Christine Brown Wilson, Jane B Hopkinson, Chris Todd

Abstract

Identifying and approaching eligible participants for recruitment to research studies usually relies on healthcare professionals. This process is sometimes hampered by deliberate or inadvertent gatekeeping that can introduce bias into patient selection. Our primary objective was to identify and assess the effect of strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies. We performed searches on 5 January 2015 in the following electronic databases: Cochrane Methodology Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, PsycINFO, ASSIA and Web of Science (SSCI, SCI-EXPANDED) from 1985 onwards. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant review articles and did citation tracking through Web of Science for all included studies. We selected all studies that evaluated a strategy to identify and recruit participants for research via healthcare professionals and provided pre-post comparison data on recruitment rates. Two review authors independently screened search results for potential eligibility, read full papers, applied the selection criteria and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios for each study to indicate the effect of each strategy. Eleven studies met our eligibility criteria and all were at medium or high risk of bias. Only five studies gave the total number of participants (totalling 7372 participants). Three studies used a randomised design, with the others using pre-post comparisons. Several different strategies were investigated. Four studies examined the impact of additional visits or information for the study site, with no increases in recruitment demonstrated. Increased recruitment rates were reported in two studies that used a dedicated clinical recruiter, and five studies that introduced an automated alert system for identifying eligible participants. The studies were embedded into trials evaluating care in oncology mainly but also in emergency departments, diabetes and lower back pain. There is no strong evidence for any single strategy to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants in research studies. Additional visits or information did not appear to increase recruitment by healthcare professionals. The most promising strategies appear to be those with a dedicated resource (e.g. a clinical recruiter or automated alert system) for identifying suitable participants that reduced the demand on healthcare professionals, but these were assessed in studies at high risk of bias.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Gambia 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 22%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Researcher 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 35 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 34 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 18%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Psychology 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 40 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 10 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,124,490
of 16,164,081 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,042
of 11,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,148
of 268,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#64
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,164,081 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,416 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 268,349 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 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 65% of its contemporaries.