Ellis Shellie D, Bertoni Alain G, Bonds Denise E, Clinch C Randall, Balasubramanyam Aarthi, Blackwell Caroline, Chen Haiying, Lischke Michael, Goff David C
Department of Outcomes Research, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, U.S.A.
Contemp Clin Trials. 2007 May;28(3):258-67. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.08.009. Epub 2006 Sep 1.
"Physicians-recruiting-physicians" is the preferred recruitment approach for practice-based research. However, yields are variable; and the approach can be costly and lead to biased, unrepresentative samples. We sought to explore the potential efficiency of alternative methods.
We conducted a retrospective analysis of the yield and cost of 10 recruitment strategies used to recruit primary care practices to a randomized trial to improve cardiovascular disease risk factor management. We measured response and recruitment yields and the resources used to estimate the value of each strategy. Providers at recruited practices were surveyed about motivation for participation.
Response to 6 opt-in marketing strategies was 0.40% (53/13290), ranging from 0% to 2.86% by strategy; 33.96% (18/53) of responders were recruited to the study. Of those recruited from opt-out strategies, 8.68% joined the study, ranging from 5.35% to 41.67% per strategy. A strategy that combined both opt-in and opt-out approaches resulted in a 51.14% (90/176) response and a 10.80% (19/90) recruitment rate. Cost of recruitment was $613 per recruited practice. Recruitment approaches based on in-person meetings (41.67%), previous relationships (33.33%), and borrowing an Area Health Education Center's established networks (10.80%), yielded the most recruited practices per effort and were most cost efficient. Individual providers who chose to participate were motivated by interest in improving their clinical practice (80.5%); contributing to CVD primary prevention (54.4%); and invigorating their practice with new ideas (42.1%).
This analysis provides suggestions for future recruitment efforts and research. Translational studies with limited funds could consider multi-modal recruitment approaches including in-person presentations to practice groups and exploitation of previous relationships, which require the providers to opt-out, and interactive opt-in approaches which rely on borrowed networks. These approaches can be supplemented with non-relationship-based opt-out strategies such as cold calls strategically targeted to underrepresented provider groups.
“医生招募医生”是基于实践研究的首选招募方法。然而,招募成功率各不相同;而且这种方法成本高昂,可能导致样本有偏差、缺乏代表性。我们试图探索其他方法的潜在效率。
我们对用于招募初级保健机构参与一项旨在改善心血管疾病风险因素管理的随机试验的10种招募策略的成功率和成本进行了回顾性分析。我们衡量了回应率和招募成功率以及用于评估每种策略价值的资源。对招募到的机构中的提供者进行了关于参与动机的调查。
对6种选择加入式营销策略的回应率为0.40%(53/13290),各策略的回应率从0%到2.86%不等;33.96%(18/53)的回应者被招募到该研究中。在那些从选择退出式策略招募到的人中,8.68%加入了该研究,每种策略的加入率从5.35%到41.67%不等。一种结合了选择加入和选择退出方法的策略产生了51.14%(90/176)的回应率和10.80%(19/90)的招募率。每个招募到的机构的招募成本为613美元。基于面对面会议(41.67%)、先前关系(33.33%)以及借助地区健康教育中心已建立的网络(10.80%)的招募方法,每次努力招募到的机构最多,且成本效益最高。选择参与的个体提供者的动机是对改善其临床实践感兴趣(80.5%);为心血管疾病一级预防做出贡献(54.4%);以及用新想法振兴其机构(42.1%)。
本分析为未来的招募工作和研究提供了建议。资金有限的转化研究可以考虑多模式招募方法,包括向实践团体进行面对面展示以及利用先前关系(这需要提供者选择退出),以及依赖借用网络的交互式选择加入方法。这些方法可以辅以基于非关系的选择退出策略,如对代表性不足的提供者群体进行有策略针对性的冷电话推销。