Evidence mapPaperPMID 32310140Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2020

Facilitators and Barriers to Recruiting Ambulatory Oncology Practices Into a Large Multisite Study: Mixed Methods Study.

Milisa Manojlovich, Louise Bedard, Jennifer J Griggs, Michaella McBratnie, Kari Mendelsohn-Victor, Christopher R Friese

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Milisa ManojlovichSchool of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6101-5535
Louise BedardMichigan Oncology Quality Consortium, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7765-4369
Jennifer J GriggsMichigan Oncology Quality Consortium, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9587-5621
Michaella McBratnieSchool of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8976-4098
Kari Mendelsohn-VictorSchool of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2922-242X
Christopher R FrieseSchool of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2281-2056

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS024914
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPractice-based research is essential to generate the data necessary to understand outcomes in ambulatory oncology care. Although there is an increased interest in studying ambulatory oncology care, given the rising patient volumes and complexity in those settings, little guidance is available on how best to recruit ambulatory oncology practices for research.

objectiveThis paper aimed to describe the facilitators and barriers to recruiting ambulatory oncology practices into a large multisite study.

methodsUsing a mixed methods design, we sought to recruit 52 ambulatory oncology practices that have participated in a state-wide quality improvement collaborative for the quantitative phase. We used 4 domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to describe facilitators and barriers to recruitment.

resultsWe successfully recruited 28 of the 52 collaborative-affiliated practices, collecting survey data from 2223 patients and 297 clinicians. Intervention attributes included multimodal outreach and training activities to assure high fidelity to the data collection protocol. The implementation process was enhanced through interactive training and practice-assigned champions responsible for data collection. External context attributes that facilitated practice recruitment included partnership with a quality improvement collaborative and the inclusion of a staff member from the collaborative in our team. Key opinion leaders within each practice who could identify challenges to participation and propose flexible solutions represented internal context attributes. We also reported lessons learned during the recruitment process, which included navigating diverse approaches to human subjects protection policies and understanding that recruitment could be a negotiated process that took longer than anticipated, among others.

conclusionsOur experience provides other researchers with challenges to anticipate and possible solutions for common issues. Using the CFIR as a guide, we identified numerous recruitment barriers and facilitators and devised strategies to enhance recruitment efforts. In conclusion, researchers and clinicians can partner effectively to design and implement research protocols that ultimately benefit patients who are increasingly seeking care in ambulatory practices.

Indexed as

ambulatory care facilitieshealth services researchrecruitment activities

Identifiers

PMID32310140
PMCPMC7199136

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.