Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35212499›Full record

ArticleNursing research

Revising Recruitment for Focus Groups to Meet Shifting Needs During COVID-19.

Pearman D Parker, Jean C McSweeney, Kristie B Hadden, Kaycee G Hess

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. "The Materials Didn't Really Seem to Apply to Me": A Focus-Group Study on Young Women's Needs and Perspectives on Breast Cancer Educational Material.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024
    Article
  2. Participant recruitment for paediatric research using social media: A practical 'how-to' guide for researchers.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

ConocoPhillips (United States) · US

Funding

The Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR)UL1TR000445 · NCATS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
Expanding Translational Research in ArkansasUL1TR003107 · NCATS · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI JAMES, LAURA P · 2019 to 2023
$21.6M
Institutional Career DevelopmentKL2TR003108 · NCATS · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI ARTHUR, JOHN M., BORSHEIM, ELISABET · 2019 to 2023
$2.3M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR003108NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR000445NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003107
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic forced researchers to modify recruitment strategies to meet accrual goals for qualitative studies. Traditional methods of in-person recruiting and using paper marketing material were eliminated almost overnight at the onset of the pandemic. Researchers quickly adapted their recruitment strategies, but researchers had to shift local, in-person recruitment efforts to solely using online platforms. The shifting recruitment strategies were accompanied with unexpected challenges, but we were able to meet our accrual goal for focus groups.

objectivesThe objective of this brief report is to explore new recruitment strategies that developed during the COVID-19 pandemic and offer suggestions for future online-based qualitative studies.

resultsPrior to COVID-19, we designed four main strategies (research registry, marketing material, social media, and provider endorsement) to recruit potential participants for focus groups as part of a qualitative, descriptive study involving young women breast cancer survivors. After the onset of COVID-19, we successfully adapted each of our initial four strategies to recruit potential participants in an incremental process. Using these adapted strategies, a total of 62 young women completed the first part of the data collection process prior to participating in a focus group. Thirty-three women participated in the focus groups, and the remaining 29 participants were lost to follow-up. The vast majority of participants were recruited through marketing material and social media after making strategic changes to recruitment. DISCUSSION: The most effective method of recruitment was the strategic use of marketing material and social media, and we offer suggestions for researchers considering online recruitment methods. We recommend that researchers use various social media platforms and specific hashtags and target their sample population at the onset of the study. The data collection changes initiated by the effects of COVID-19 may remain, and researchers can consider implementing permanent recruitment strategies to best meet the needs of this new landscape of conducing online focus groups.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social MediaFemaleFocus GroupsHumansPandemicsPatient SelectionSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35212499
PMCPMC8881677
OpenAlexW3206038008

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.