Recruiting Busy Clinicians through Asynchronous Online Focus Groups: Recruitment Evidence from Two Projects
Venegas, M.; SoRelle, R.; Anderson, A. S.; Giardina, T. D.; Freytag, J.; Hysong, S. J.
Show abstract
ObjectiveDue to an increase in healthcare quality research and QI projects, there is a high demand for clinicians time to serve as research participants. Traditional focus group methods are time demanding, posing a barrier to collect data from busy clinicians. We show that asynchronous online focus groups (AOFGs) are a viable method for increasing participation from busy clinicians. Materials and MethodsRecruitment metrics were computed by counting the number of enrollees and sites of provenance during the period when traditional focus groups and AOFGs were offered, respectively. Then, using Microsoft Teams, private channels served as forums for primary care staff at Veterans Health Administration to share their experiences as part of two healthcare projects. Results82 primary care staff from 17 VA sites individually participated. Pivoting to AOFGs helped increase acceptance rates by 429% and 116% in each respective project. Offering AOFGs helped decrease non-response rates across both projects by 35% and 16.34% on both projects. Notably, Care Managers (RNs) were the most well-represented, constituting nearly 40% of participants on each project. DiscussionThis paper explores metrics that can be tracked and measured for future research. AOFGs replace the coordination work of gathering participants in one place in real time with the protracted coordination work of keeping participants engaged. AOFGs thus require consistent communication between recruiters and participants as well as active moderation to sustain engagement. ConclusionsBy providing a flexible alternative that accommodates the unpredictable demands clinicians face in primary care, AOFGs help address the barrier of time demand and increase participation in quality improvement and healthcare research projects.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Essential Indicators of Quality in Primary Care Settings: An Evidence-Based, Structured, Expert Approach 95%
- “Endless Opportunities”: A qualitative exploration of facilitators and barriers to scale-up of two-way texting follow-up after voluntary medical male circumcision in Zimbabwe 95%
- Sources of Successful Participant Engagement in a Public Health Research Study: a Focus on a Latino Community 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- How can rural community-engaged health services planning affect sustainable health care system changes? - A process description and qualitative analysis of data from the Rural Coordination Centre of British Columbia’s Rural Site Visits Project 94%
- Evaluating a first fully automated interview grounded in Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) methodology: results from a feasibility study 94%
- Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom: UK-REACH ethico-legal research, qualitative research on healthcare workers’ experiences, and stakeholder engagement protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving local authority financial support services for users with complex health needs: a mixed-method economic evaluation of Social Navigators in South Tyneside, UK 94%
- Improving the impact of pharmacy interventions in hospitals 92%
- An electronic application to improve management of infections in low-income neonatal units: pilot implementation of the NeoTree Beta App in a public sector hospital in Zimbabwe. 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Patients’ and carers’ experiences of, and engagement with remote home monitoring services for COVID-19 patients: a rapid mixed-methods study 93%
- Trauma informed co-production: Collaborating and combining expertise to improve access to primary care with women with complex needs 93%
- Public involvement to enhance care home research; collaboration on a minimum data set for care homes 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.