TY - JOUR
T1 - Facilitators and barriers to successful recruitment into a large comparative effectiveness trial
T2 - A qualitative study
AU - Behringer-Massera, Stephanie
AU - Browne, Terysia
AU - George, Geny
AU - Duran, Sally
AU - Cherrington, Andrea
AU - McKee, M. Diane
N1 - Funding Information:
This research project was funded by the Empire Clinical Researcher and Investigator Program (ECRIP) of New York State. Incentives were supported by internal funds of Montefiore Medical Center. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Future Medicine Ltd.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - Background: Recruitment of participants into research studies, especially individuals from minority groups, is challenging; lack of diversity may lead to biased findings. Aim: To explore beliefs about research participation among individuals who were approached and eligible for the GRADE study. Methods: In-depth qualitative telephone interviews with randomized participants (n = 25) and eligible individuals who declined to enroll (n = 26). Results: Refusers and consenters differed in trust and perceptions of risk, benefits and burden of participation. Few participants understood how comparative effectiveness research differed from other types of trials; however, some features of comparative effectiveness research were perceived as lower risk. Conclusion: We identified facilitators and addressable barriers to participation in research studies.
AB - Background: Recruitment of participants into research studies, especially individuals from minority groups, is challenging; lack of diversity may lead to biased findings. Aim: To explore beliefs about research participation among individuals who were approached and eligible for the GRADE study. Methods: In-depth qualitative telephone interviews with randomized participants (n = 25) and eligible individuals who declined to enroll (n = 26). Results: Refusers and consenters differed in trust and perceptions of risk, benefits and burden of participation. Few participants understood how comparative effectiveness research differed from other types of trials; however, some features of comparative effectiveness research were perceived as lower risk. Conclusion: We identified facilitators and addressable barriers to participation in research studies.
KW - comparative effectiveness research
KW - qualitative research
KW - recruitment
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071702144&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071702144&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2217/cer-2019-0010
DO - 10.2217/cer-2019-0010
M3 - Article
C2 - 31368793
AN - SCOPUS:85071702144
VL - 8
SP - 815
EP - 826
JO - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
JF - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
SN - 2042-6305
IS - 10
ER -
