Back

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.

2025-09-21 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2025.09.19.25336092 medRxiv
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.

50% of probability mass above

"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.