Obstacles to recruitment in paediatric studies focusing on mental health in a physical health context: the experiences of clinical gatekeepers in an observational cohort study.
CFS
Cohort study
Gatekeeping
Paediatric
Recruitment
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 04 2019
27 04 2019
Historique:
received:
16
12
2018
accepted:
11
04
2019
entrez:
29
4
2019
pubmed:
29
4
2019
medline:
21
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Studies in both paediatric and psychiatric settings often experience problems in recruitment. This can compromise the ability of the study to recruit to target, meaning studies are potentially underpowered. It can also result in a biased sample if a non-representative group are selectively recruited. Recruitment to studies in health contexts often depends on healthcare professionals, who act as gatekeepers by screening patients for eligibility and obtaining consent for the research team to contact them. The experience of health professionals as gatekeepers in paediatric studies is poorly understood and may affect whether recruitment is successful or not. Six out of seven eligible healthcare professionals from a specialist paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) team were interviewed. All participants were undertaking initial clinical assessments within which they were asked to identify eligible patients for an observational study of co-morbid mental health problems in adolescents with confirmed CFS/ME. This study had experienced particular recruitment problems, more so than other studies in the same service. Interview questions were designed to explore perceptions of research, and barriers and facilitators of recruitment. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used. Participants espoused their commitment to the value of research. However, they perceived there to be a number of barriers to recruitment. Barriers within the clinical context included time pressures and the emotional nature of initial clinical assessments. Barriers posed by the wider research context included recruiting to multiple studies at the same time. Factors specific to the observational study of mental health in CFS/ME included aspects of the study design, such as the name and nature of the study, as well as the focus of the study itself. Participants made a number of recommendations about how recruitment barriers could be overcome. The current study highlights the need to carefully consider, at design stage, how to overcome potential barriers to recruitment. Gatekeepers should be actively involved at this stage to ensure that the study is set up in such a way to best enable recruitment activities within the clinical setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Studies in both paediatric and psychiatric settings often experience problems in recruitment. This can compromise the ability of the study to recruit to target, meaning studies are potentially underpowered. It can also result in a biased sample if a non-representative group are selectively recruited. Recruitment to studies in health contexts often depends on healthcare professionals, who act as gatekeepers by screening patients for eligibility and obtaining consent for the research team to contact them. The experience of health professionals as gatekeepers in paediatric studies is poorly understood and may affect whether recruitment is successful or not.
METHODS
Six out of seven eligible healthcare professionals from a specialist paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) team were interviewed. All participants were undertaking initial clinical assessments within which they were asked to identify eligible patients for an observational study of co-morbid mental health problems in adolescents with confirmed CFS/ME. This study had experienced particular recruitment problems, more so than other studies in the same service. Interview questions were designed to explore perceptions of research, and barriers and facilitators of recruitment. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used.
RESULTS
Participants espoused their commitment to the value of research. However, they perceived there to be a number of barriers to recruitment. Barriers within the clinical context included time pressures and the emotional nature of initial clinical assessments. Barriers posed by the wider research context included recruiting to multiple studies at the same time. Factors specific to the observational study of mental health in CFS/ME included aspects of the study design, such as the name and nature of the study, as well as the focus of the study itself. Participants made a number of recommendations about how recruitment barriers could be overcome.
CONCLUSIONS
The current study highlights the need to carefully consider, at design stage, how to overcome potential barriers to recruitment. Gatekeepers should be actively involved at this stage to ensure that the study is set up in such a way to best enable recruitment activities within the clinical setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31029100
doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0730-z
pii: 10.1186/s12874-019-0730-z
pmc: PMC6487041
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
89Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : DRF-2016-09-021
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : SRF-2013-06-013
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K025643/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
J Affect Disord. 2015 Feb 1;172:274-90
pubmed: 25451427
Int J Nurs Stud. 2018 Dec;88:85-96
pubmed: 30219697
Arch Dis Child. 2018 Feb;103(2):155-164
pubmed: 28931531
Psychol Psychother. 2015 Sep;88(3):335-50
pubmed: 25257960
Int Rev Psychiatry. 2011;23(1):31-40
pubmed: 21338296
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Dec 28;13:153
pubmed: 24373214
Pediatrics. 2016 Sep;138(3):
pubmed: 27492817
BMJ Open. 2013 Feb 07;3(2):
pubmed: 23396504
Perspect Clin Res. 2016 Jul-Sep;7(3):137-43
pubmed: 27453831
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 May 19;11:73
pubmed: 21595906
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 16;10(10):e0140768
pubmed: 26473602
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009 Oct;106(41):664-8
pubmed: 19946431
Trials. 2015 Sep 25;16:428
pubmed: 26407547
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Jan 23;14:10
pubmed: 24456229