Our research aimed to explore how focus group studies in health research report their recruitment practices. We wanted to understand what these reports reveal about the thoroughness of participant recruitment methods. Focus groups are popular in health research, but there’s not much insight into how researchers actually recruit participants.
To conduct our study, we randomly selected 80 publications from a systematic literature search. We used a scoring system to assess key aspects of the recruitment process. Our goal is to enhance how researchers report this part of qualitative research, helping them improve their recruitment strategies and, ultimately, the quality of their studies.
One major finding is that current reports on participant recruitment lack consistency and structure. There is a wide variation across the studies we analyzed. This inconsistency contrasts with established reporting guidelines and the broader literature on recruitment best practices.
- Participant characteristics: Researchers often fail to clearly define their target group.
- Team skills: Information on whether the research team is properly trained in recruitment is frequently missing.
- Recruitment planning: Many studies don’t summarize past successful recruitment strategies relevant to their new study.
- Motivating participants: Clear arguments about the value of participating are often absent.
While some details like the types of participants and where they were recruited from are reported, other important aspects are often overlooked. For instance, we found scant information about who approaches potential participants, the techniques used, and the duration of recruitment efforts. Incentives to encourage participation are rarely discussed as well.
Additionally, guidelines like COREQ and SRQR are not commonly referenced in these studies, even though they provide important questions regarding participant selection. Our results indicate the need for more comprehensive recruitment reporting, highlighting areas where practices could improve.
We believe that journal editors and peer reviewers can play a critical role in encouraging authors to adhere to these guidelines. Clear directions in submission guidelines could lead to better reporting practices.
Moreover, we noticed that recruitment methods vary significantly. Many studies choose straightforward methods, such as contacting patients in clinics or hospitals. There’s often little collaboration with community organizations or other potential partners who could help reach participants.
Our analysis also found that researchers tend to overlook various ways to increase participant interest. Offering financial incentives is only one approach among many. Exploring effective recruitment channels and working with local organizations could lead to better participant engagement and diversity.
Previous studies have tackled the barriers and enablers of participant recruitment in health research. Our findings align with this, confirming that personal engagement from researchers boosts recruitment efforts. Yet, the methods suggested to facilitate participation aren’t always applied in practice. Researchers may not be fully aware of the existing recommendations or might need clearer guidance.
We also explored the importance of considering the participant perspective. It’s crucial to understand what motivates individuals to join a study. Clear communication about how their involvement can benefit them or others can enhance recruitment efforts.
In particular, engaging ‘hard-to-reach’ communities poses a challenge. Our study showed little evidence that researchers strategized to include these groups. Developing specific recruitment strategies for these populations can diversify perspectives and enrich the research.
We also highlighted the value of patient and public involvement (PPI) in recruiting participants. Though some studies mentioned PPI, its application remains limited. Engaging patients as recruitment contributors could improve access to target groups and generate more interest.
Limitations: While we conducted a comprehensive analysis, our study has limitations. We didn’t include all eligible publications and focused only on those in English. Random selection means our findings are likely representative, but future research could explore recruitment for online focus groups and compare findings. Additionally, we based our results on what was reported, which may not always reflect the complete recruitment process. Interviews with authors could provide deeper insights, but general guidelines dictate what researchers should include in their reports.
Despite these limitations, our findings illuminate important aspects of recruitment practices in health research. By improving reporting and acknowledging the complexities of participant engagement, we can foster better research outcomes.
Source link
Focus groups,Study participants,Recruitment,Recruiting,Health research,Participant selection,Qualitative methods,Theory of Medicine/Bioethics,Statistical Theory and Methods,Statistics for Life Sciences,Medicine,Health Sciences
