23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Recruitment of caregivers into health services research: lessons from a user-centred design study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          With patient and public engagement in many aspects of the healthcare system becoming an imperative, the recruitment of patients and members of the public into service and research roles has emerged as a challenge. The existing literature carries few reports of the methods – successful and unsuccessful – that researchers engaged in user-centred design (UCD) projects are using to recruit participants as equal partners in co-design research. This paper uses the recruitment experiences of a specific UCD project to provide a road map for other investigators, and to make general recommendations for funding agencies interested in supporting co-design research.

          Methods

          We used a case study methodology and employed Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Focus Group discussions to collect data. We recruited 25 family caregivers.

          Results

          Employing various strategies to recruit unpaid family caregivers in a UCD project aimed at co-designing an assistive technology for family caregivers, we found that recruitment through caregiver agencies is the most efficient (least costly) and effective mechanism. The nature of this recruitment work – the time and compromises it requires – has, we believe, implications for funding agencies who need to understand that working with caregivers agencies, requires a considerable amount of time for building relationships, aligning values, and establishing trust.

          Conclusions

          In addition to providing adaptable strategies, the paper contributes to discussions surrounding how projects seeking effective, meaningful, and ethical patient and public engagement are planned and funded. We call for more evidence to explore effective mechanisms to recruit family caregivers into qualitative research. We also call for reports of successful strategies that other researchers have employed to recruit and retain family caregivers in their research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies

          Background A commonly reported problem with the conduct of multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is that recruitment is often slower or more difficult than expected, with many trials failing to reach their planned sample size within the timescale and funding originally envisaged. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have been associated with good and poor recruitment in a cohort of multicentre trials funded by two public bodies: the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme. Methods The cohort of trials was identified from the administrative databases held by the two funding bodies. 114 trials that recruited participants between 1994 and 2002 met the inclusion criteria. The full scientific applications and subsequent trial reports submitted by the trial teams to the funders provided the principal data sources. Associations between trial characteristics and recruitment success were tested using the Chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test where appropriate. Results Less than a third (31%) of the trials achieved their original recruitment target and half (53%) were awarded an extension. The proportion achieving targets did not appear to improve over time. The overall start to recruitment was delayed in 47 (41%) trials and early recruitment problems were identified in 77 (63%) trials. The inter-relationship between trial features and recruitment success was complex. A variety of strategies were employed to try to increase recruitment, but their success could not be assessed. Conclusion Recruitment problems are complex and challenging. Many of the trials in the cohort experienced recruitment difficulties. Trials often required extended recruitment periods (sometimes supported by additional funds). While this is of continuing concern, success in addressing the trial question may be more important than recruitment alone.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

            Background Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction. Debate Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders. Conclusions First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nominal group technique: an effective method for obtaining group consensus.

              This paper aims to demonstrate the versatility and application of nominal group technique as a method for generating priority information. Nominal group technique was used in the context of four focus groups involving clinical experts from the emergency department (ED) and obstetric and midwifery areas of a busy regional hospital to assess the triage and management of pregnant women in the ED. The data generated were used to create a priority list of discussion triggers for the subsequent Participatory Action Research Group. This technique proved to be a productive and efficient data collection method which produced information in a hierarchy of perceived importance and identified real world problems. This information was vital in initiating the participatory action research project and is recommended as an effective and reliable data collection method, especially when undertaking research with clinical experts. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                myles.leslie@ucalgary.ca
                +1 (403) 615 1644 , akram.mahani@ucalgary.ca
                gail.mackean@gmail.com
                Journal
                Res Involv Engagem
                Res Involv Engagem
                Research Involvement and Engagement
                BioMed Central (London )
                2056-7529
                20 May 2019
                20 May 2019
                2019
                : 5
                : 17
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7697, GRID grid.22072.35, Department of Community Health Sciences, , Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, ; Calgary, Alberta Canada
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7697, GRID grid.22072.35, School of Public Policy, , University of Calgary, ; Downtown Campus, 906 8th Avenue S.W., 5th Floor, Calgary, Alberta T2P 1H9 Canada
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2092 9755, GRID grid.412105.3, Health Services Management Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, , Kerman University of Medical Sciences, ; Kerman, Iran
                [4 ]IMAGINE Citizens Collaborating for Health, Calgary, Alberta Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3297-7660
                Article
                150
                10.1186/s40900-019-0150-6
                6528243
                31139432
                587b4b10-4a78-4d3c-8901-bd6e45e9ae61
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 19 February 2019
                : 8 May 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100011047, AGE-WELL;
                Award ID: 0000
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                caregivers,recruitment,elderly,health services research,patient engagement,user-centred design (ucd)

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content111

                Cited by16

                Most referenced authors647