Dataset Information

Recruitment of general practices: Is a standardised approach helpful in the involvement of healthcare professionals in research?

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Health service research often involves the active participation of healthcare professionals. However, their ability and commitment to research varies. This can cause recruitment difficulties and thereby prolong the study period and inflate budgets. Solberg has identified seven R-factors as determinants for successfully recruiting healthcare professionals: relationships, reputation, requirements, rewards, reciprocity, resolution, and respect.

Method

This is a process evaluation of the seven R-factors. We applied these factors to guide the design of our recruitment strategy as well as to make adjustments when recruiting general practices in a guideline implementation study. In the guideline implementation study, we studied the effect of outreach visits, quality reports, and new patient stratification tools for low back pain patients.

Results

During a period of 15 months, we recruited 60 practices, which was fewer than planned (100 practices). In this evaluation, five of Solberg's seven R-factors were successfully addressed and two factors were not. The need to involve (reciprocity) end users in the development of new software and the amount of time needed to conduct recruitment (resolution) were underestimated.

Conclusion

The framework of the seven R-factors was a feasible tool in our recruitment process. However, we suggest further investigation in developing systematic approaches to support the recruitment of healthcare professionals to research.

SUBMITTER: Riis A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4976791 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Recruitment of general practices: Is a standardised approach helpful in the involvement of healthcare professionals in research?

Riis Allan A Jensen Cathrine E CE Maindal Helle T HT Bro Flemming F Jensen Martin B MB

SAGE open medicine 20160804

<h4>Introduction</h4>Health service research often involves the active participation of healthcare professionals. However, their ability and commitment to research varies. This can cause recruitment difficulties and thereby prolong the study period and inflate budgets. Solberg has identified seven R-factors as determinants for successfully recruiting healthcare professionals: relationships, reputation, requirements, rewards, reciprocity, resolution, and respect.<h4>Method</h4>This is a process e ...[more]

PMID: 27551424

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveWith the digitalization of objects and spaces, healthcare services are being reshaped globally, creating many potential applications. This study aimed to determine the application potential of remote healthcare services (RHS) in a hospital by considering the experiences, interests, and suggestions of health professionals, and examples of useful applications that can be used, developed, or invented for healthcare systems.MethodsA semi-structured, face-to-face interview survey was conducted with 176 healthcare professionals working at Bozok University.ResultsBranches with the highest practice experience were internal medicine, cardiac, pediatric, infection, and orthopedics. Experienced participants rated the usability of "Consultation," "Support," and "Monitoring" applications higher than other apps, and indicated that they would prefer to use them for themselves (η²≤0.12). Requirements adequacy was lower for older adults, internal/surgical branches, and physicians than for other groups (η² ≥ 0.05). Application categories showed a significant relationship (0.4 ≤ r ≤ 0.8, p < 0.05). Several variables significantly explained the models (p < 0.001): application-usability (64%), user-demand (64%), and requirements-adequacy (25%). Professionals' demand (r = 0.83) was more strongly correlated to usability than patient demand (r = 0.63). Health professionals (N = 105) from 17 branches provided 57 available, 51 developable, and 19 innovative application recommendations. These were coded according to application type, critical features, presence, integration status, and usefulness.ConclusionRHS' application potential in a hospital was revealed considering demographic factors and application categories based on health professionals' experiences, practical interests, and suggestions, with a strong, comprehensive, and up-to-date methodology. The findings have the potential for international application and can contribute to implementing useful and developing original applications.

Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in research is well-established in the UK. However, it can be challenging to introduce PPI to research communities where there is limited prior knowledge, experience or appreciation of PPI. We aimed to explore current PPI practices, experiences and ethical and operational challenges with PPI within our own research community in Austria, to inform strategies for supporting PPI in Austria going forward.MethodsWe surveyed scientists at 21 research institutes of the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft (LBG) and representatives of 32 medical and university research ethics committees in Austria using online questionnaires. We analysed quantitative data using descriptive statistics, and we collated textual responses to open questions. We combined survey data with anecdotal evidence from our personal experience to summarise current challenges around implementing PPI in Austria.ResultsNineteen scientists from nine research institutes indicated generally positive attitudes towards PPI. However, the majority reported they rarely or never involved patients and members of the public in roles of consultation, collaboration or control in research. Six of eight ethics committees were unfamiliar with PPI. We discern five current challenges to implementing PPI in Austria: lack of knowledge and skills for PPI among scientists, scepticism about the usefulness of PPI, conflation of PPI with qualitative research, uncertainty about ethical requirements for PPI and uncertainty about publishing PPI activities.DiscussionWe suggest that the provision of guidance about ethical requirements of PPI is a strategic priority. To address this, and following on from a recently introduced PPI training and grant scheme by the LBG, our surveys have initiated a dialogue with ethics committees and have informed the development of a checklist for ethical aspects of PPI.ConclusionOur experiences may provide useful examples to others who seek to introduce or strengthen PPI practices within their own research communities.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals outside of medicine (HCPs), including nurses, midwives and allied health professionals, are increasingly involved in research for patient benefit. Their challenge is to negotiate inter-professional or professionally isolated contexts. The aims of this study were to evaluate the 'Healthcare Professionals in Research' (HPiR) Facebook group (a self-directed and confidential peer support group for doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs) including engagement, the experiences of doctoral and postdoctoral HPiR members and to identify future career challenges using an on-line survey.MethodsThe HPiR Facebook group was launched in May 2019. Five HCP Community managers (CMs) were trained in on-line platform curation, moderation and screening. An on-line survey was designed to capture data from HPiR members. A purposive sampling approach was applied. Respondents were required to be doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs and a registered member of the HPiR group. Respondents represented a range of healthcare professions, 79 % of whom had over ten years clinical experience. Membership growth and engagement was analysed. Descriptive statistics were used to present numerical data. Qualitative data were analysed thematically.Results96 members were admitted to the group within the first month. All members were actively engaged with group content. 34/96 doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs completed the survey. Most members joined for networking (88 %) and peer support (82 %) purposes. Analysis of text responses showed difficulties in balancing a clinical academic career and highlighted the consequences of undefined clinical academic roles and pathways.ConclusionsDoctoral and postdoctoral HCPs value the opportunities that HPiR provides for peer support and connection with fellow HCPs. HPiR has the potential to strengthen research capacity, support research skill development and drive change within the clinical academic community. Clinical academic roles and pathways need to be standardised. The creation of opportunities beyond doctoral studies is a priority.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals provide care to patients and during that process, record large quantities of data in patient records. Data in an Electronic Health Record should ideally be recorded once and be reusable within the care process as well as for secondary purposes. A common approach to realise this is to let healthcare providers record data in a standardised and structured way at the point of care. Currently, it is not clear to what extent this structured and standardised recording has been adopted by healthcare professionals and what barriers to their adoption exist. Therefore, we developed and validated a multivariable model to capture the concepts underlying the adoption of structured and standardised recording among healthcare professionals.MethodsBased on separate models from the literature we developed a new theoretical model describing the underlying concepts of the adoption of structured and standardised recording. Using a questionnaire built upon this model we gathered data to perform a summative validation of our model. Validation was done through partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The quality of both levels defined in PLS-SEM analysis, i.e., the measurement model and the structural model, were assessed on performance measures defined in literature.ResultsThe theoretical model we developed consists of 29 concepts related to information systems as well as organisational factors and personal beliefs. Based on these concepts, 59 statements with a 5 point Likert-scale (fully disagree to fully agree) were specified in the questionnaire. We received 3584 responses. The validation shows our model is supported to a large extent by the questionnaire data. Intention to record in a structured and standardised way emerged as a significant factor of reported behaviour (β = 0.305, p < 0.001). This intention is influenced most by attitude (β = 0.512, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThis model can be used to measure the perceived level of adoption of structured and standardised recording among healthcare professionals and further improve knowledge on the barriers and facilitators of this adoption.

Dataset Information

Recruitment of general practices: Is a standardised approach helpful in the involvement of healthcare professionals in research?

Introduction

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Recruitment of general practices: Is a standardised approach helpful in the involvement of healthcare professionals in research?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets