|
|
It is a very admirable quality for someone to volunteer their time for research, and no one appreciates this more than the researchers whose projects are dependent on such generosity.
It is interesting to hear reports from participants that they were never contacted by the researcher after applying for a study, or that they did not receive the compensation that was promised as part of participating in the study. While one cannot jump to an assumption of neglect, it does raise an interesting point: Participants are valuable, and we need to ensure that every participant feels that the time and effort they donated has been appreciated and was well worth while.
Follow-up thank-you messages and providing a summary of the results of the research are two very simple and very effective ways of instilling positive feelings. To make life easy, we would love to host your preliminary results so that your participants can view them on line – for absolutely no cost at all.
So please remember, keep ‘em happy, and they will still be around for your next big study!
 Share on Facebook
Preemptively identifying the barriers for your potential participants may yield significant improvements in your recruitment campaigns. It is important to note that “Barriers”, as discussed below, also include beliefs; so be sure to consider possible misconceptions or assumptions your target population may have.
Below are some of the more common barriers reported by participants of various clinical and rehabilitation studies.
- Difficulty accessing the research site
- Insufficient and inflexible time for appointments
- Undesired experimental design
- Requirement of regular or costly travel to investigation site
- Lengthy or frequent appointments required
- Tedious, repetitive and lengthy questionnaires
- Discontinuation of current treatment
- Risk of adverse side-effects from starting new treatment
- Risk of being randomised to a placebo group
Consider if any of these barriers exist in your study (even if a potential participant may incorrectly assume they exist), and do what you can to work around them and look to provide alternatives or reimbursements to balance the participants efforts.
Share on Facebook
Research proposal presentations are important not only for professional development, but also so that members of the audience can scrutanise and potentially strengthen the rationalle and methodology of the proposed project – neither of which can occuer if the presentation does not effectively convey the key messages. To help students (and perhaps some professionals) with presenting proposals I have collated a fairly comprehensive list of points which I believe to be crucial for an effective proposal, and have put a full article up on Getparticpants here.
The key areas that are discussed include:
- Preparation
- Designing the presentation
- Delivering the presentation
- Wrapping it up
Read the full article here.
And over the next wee while I also plan to provide a template powerpoint as a guide for presenting a proposal, as well as other helpful articles for preparing research projects.
Enjoy!
Share on Facebook
I have recently read and heard research proposals from a couple of students pairs who were collaborating on larger than usual research project. When managed appropriately, I believe this approach provides a great opportunity for a larger and more meaningful research undertaking that may otherwise not be viable. It makes better use of recruitment efforts as a single sample can be used to answer more than one research question, enables a more thorough investigation which improves publication options, increases the overall quality of research coming from the department, and also enables students learn more than what would be achieved from a smaller study. Of course, issues of codependencies and rate-limiting steps need to be identified early on, and a clear outline of how the project will be split is essential.
The most obvious ways to split a research project include cross-sectional/longitudinal, subjective/objective, and validity/reliability. However, depending on the design and the number of groups, there are any number of ways to split the workload of a research project.
Share on Facebook
I was just looking though our data, and thought I would share some descriptive statistics regarding our success with recruitment thus far.
To date, we have had 91 active listings and have facilitated at least 2938 applications (this does not include applications made by phone). This is a positive number considering our membership base is approximately 2200.
On an average, this is 35 applicants per listing. The standard deviation is quite large at 81.
Overall I believe this is very encouraging, and indicates a very cost effective solution (averaging out at around $1.70 per applicant!)
Happy recruiting!
Share on Facebook
I’m sure we have all seen the “participants wanted” posters stuck on gym walls, Uni notice boards and supermarket noticeboards. Some of them are okay, others…
A student of mine has recently created this gem of a recruitment poster and I wanted to share it with you, and perhaps inspire future student researchers with their next poster. Here is what I like about it:
- It is colour. Sure printing may cost a few dollars but at least it will get noticed. The colour itself is important too, stay away from reds and yellows as they are perceived as budget colours, whereas blues and green are frequently associated with health (sounds familiar?)
- Professional design. No one wants to volunteer for a study that they don’t believe will be professionally run, so its a good idea to start the professional image right from the outset.
- Nice clear image that will capture the attention of the target population.
- Something the reader can take with them. The little card size image just below the poster is exactly that. In this case, a little pouch will be included on the poster for people to take cards with them. I think the little tear away tags at the bottom that are often used would word just as well (make sure you tear one or two off you-self! Social proof works wonders!)
- Clear contact details. But more than that, details that are easy to remember and professional. No gmail or hotmail accounts here. Sub-domains and email addresses at Getparticipants can be easily arranged.
- Wording: “You are invited…” rather than “you may be eligible…”. And of course, easy to understand without too much information. People wont apply if they don’t understand it, so if you can’t explain it simply then save it for the info sheet. No jargon… Ask yourself: “would uncle Bob understand every sentence?”
Share on Facebook
There are many tools available for all aspects of research preparation and analysis. However, the following two resources I find are perhaps the most utilised and are certainly very useful:
- G*Power. G*Power is a free Windows and Mac application that, among other things, calculates the required sample size of your study based on effect sizes, error probabilities, level of significance and confidence. The designers have also published in peer reviewed articles (Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160; Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191). The software, and the pdf articles are available here.
- A New View on Statistics: An on-line text book of statistics for researchers in biomedical and other empirical sciences. Will G. Hopkins. 2009. This on-line resource is a great place for students and other developing researchers to help with getting a grasp on fundamental principles of statistics. Hopkins also makes available several Excel calculation sheets and includes many examples. The great thing about having this resource on line is that you can follow links to easily find the right tests for your analysis. Here’s the link to the resource.
If you know of any other resources that should be included here then please let me know. I have also posted these, along with other resources on the main site here.
Share on Facebook
Prevention is better than cure. I have yet to find an instance where this is not true. In terms of recruitment I am starting to see more and more projects that are listed for very specific populations. This poses an immediate difficulty as you are limiting your potential audience from which to recruit. If this applies to you then I strongly recommend the two following steps:
- Explore the necessity of you inclusion criteria. Can your research question be answered with a broader population? Are there other equally important questions that can be answered with a broader sample? This is something I would strongly recommend to student researcher who do not have the resources available to recruit from a special population, and who also have the flexibility to make changes to their area of research. Of course, the requirements and benefits of the participants will also influence your recruitment, however if you cannot tell your audience (because they are hard to find) about the study then nothing else really matters.
- Plan for the worst and plan to use every option available. I often hear people say “I will see how I go first” and then months later I hear from them asking for help, which takes months to organise. By this stage they are exhausted and have lost valuable time. If you can, organise all your editorials, advertising campaigns, website presence, compensations, posters, fliers etc… at the beginning and plan to do them all. This includes sorting out advertising funding before you need it (most researchers I know must wait considerable time before funding applications are processed and approved. Better to have it and not need it!).
Simple stuff really. Don’t forget that participant recruitment can be the the hardest part of research, so treat it accordingly!
Happy recruiting!
Share on Facebook
Understanding what motivates people to volunteer for research is extremely beneficial for successful participant recruitment.
Lets look at some intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. Before we do, consider that intrinsic factors are typically more influential that extrinsic, or tangible, factors (Aitken, 2003).
Intrinsic factors
- An understanding of the importance in supporting scientifically controlled studies (Bell 2008, Aitken 2003, Patel 2003)
- To gain more information about their own condition, new techniques to cope, or better access to care (Halpern 2003, van Stuijvenberg 1998, Wright 2004)
- Most participants hope that the treatment being studied will benefit them directly (Chang 2004, Aitken 2003, Patel 2003)
- An understanding that previous volunteers have helped develop their current treatment, and a responsibility to support future health care (Aitken 2003)
- Perception of a greater level of care than would otherwise occur (Aitken 2003)
Extrinsic factors
Monetary and other tangible gifts are obvious motivators, but in some cases may be considered coercion. However, should extrinsic factors be available then here is what has been recommended:
- Meaningful items, such as nappies (for a pregnancy or baby study) or clothing (Kelly 1996, Hellard 2001, McKenzie 1999)
- Direct payments of cash typically have better responses than gifts of equal value (Rudy 1994)
- Lotteries (Hellard 2001, Kalantar 1999)
- Interesting to note that increasing financial rewards do not linearly increase response
Although interested and eligible, a potential participant may still choose not to enrol particularly if they cannot identify with the value of the study (Patel 2003).
References:
- Aitken L., Gallagher R., Madronio C. (2003) Principles of recruitment and retention in clinical trials. International journal of nursing practice; 9(6)
- Bell et. al., (2008). Participant recruitment and retention in rehabilitation research. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; 87(4)
- Chang BH, Hendricks AM, Slawsky MT, et al: Patient recruitment to a randomized clinical trial of behavioral therapy for chronic heart failure. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004;4:8
- Corbie-Smith G, Viscoli CM, Kernan WN, et al: Influence of race, clinical, and other socio-demographic features on trial participation. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:304–9
- Halpern SD, Karlawish JH, Casarett D, et al: Hypertensive patients’ willingness to participate in placebo-controlled trials: implications for recruitment efficiency. Am Heart J 2003;146:985–92
- Hellard ME, Sinclair MI, Forbes AB, Fairley CK. Methods used to maintain a high level of participant involvement in a clinical trial. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2001;55: 348–351.
- Kalantar JS, Talley NJ. The effects of lottery incentive and length of questionnaire on health survey response rates: a randomized study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1999;52:1117–1122.
- Kelly PJ, Cordell JR. Recruitment of women into research studies: a nursing perspective. Clinical Nurse Specialist 1996;10: 25–28.
- Lowton K: Trials and tribulations: understanding motivations for clinical research participation amongst adults with cystic fibrosis. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:1854–65
- McKenzie M, Tulsky JP, Long HL, Chesney M, Moss A. Tracking and follow-up of marginalized populations: a review. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 1999;10: 409–429.
- Patel M.X., Doku V., Tennakoon L. (2003) Challenges in recruitment of research participants. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment; 9(3)
- Rudy EB, Estok PJ, Kerr ME, Menzel L. Research incentives: money versus gifts. Nursing Research 1994;43: 253–255.
- Wright JR, Whelan TJ, Schiff S, et al: Why cancer patients enter randomized clinical trials: exploring the factors that influence their decision. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4312–8
- van Stuijvenberg M, Suur MH, de Vos S, et al: Informed consent, parental awareness, and reasons for participating in a randomised controlled study. Arch Dis Child 1998;79: 120–5
Share on Facebook
How do we quantify participant recruitment in a way that can be made relative to the discipline or health condition?
Recruitment Index
Rojavin (2005) suggested the “Recruitment Index” (RI) as a measure of participant recruitment activity in clinical trials. This index represents the number of days required for an average site in a muiticenter study to recruit one analysable participant. The RI can he used to evaluate the efficacy of various recruitment strategies, to plan the duration of a recruitment period for a new study, or to project the number of participating sites required to supply a given number of participants within a certain time period.
The RI can be expressed as:
RI= (LPFV-FPFV) x S/P
where LPFV is the date of last participant first visit, the end of study recruitment phase; FPFV is the date of first participant first visit, the beginning of recruitment phase; S is the number of participating sites; and P is the number of participants who successfully completed study participation.
The problem with this index is that it does not provide any indication of success from the recruitment period, rather it simply refers to the required rate of recruitment.
Enrollment Ratio
This is simply defined as the number of participants enrolled as a percentage of actual contacts. While is beyond the purpose of a blog to provide normative data, I can say that the five most recent studies listed on Getparticipants.com at the time of this post had received an average enrollment ratio of 11.9% (stdev = 11%). As a reference, some studies have reported values ranging from 6% to 17%.
One should also consider the number of individuals that actually receive the communication, the number of applicants or interest response, and the number of enrolments. This approach will help separate marketing effectiveness from exclusion criteria and other participant barriers. For a benchmark, a recent survey of ours found that an average of 50% of applicants from Getparticipants.com convert to participants.
The cost per participant and rate of recruitment are also a crucial dimensions in participant recruitment, as discussed in this post.
Overall, wouldn’t a standardised measure of recruitment that includes these dimensions be great! Please feel free to make a suggestion or comment on this!
For more information:
Share on Facebook
|
|
