Evidence mapPaperPMID 39810091Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Recruiting participants for focus groups in health research: a meta-research study.

Jonas Lander, Simon Wallraf, Dawid Pieper, Ronny Klawunn, Hala Altawil, Marie-Luise Dierks, Cosima John

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Jonas LanderHannover Medical School (MHH), Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Carl-Neuberg-Street 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. Lander.Jonas@mh-hannover.de.
Simon WallrafHannover Medical School (MHH), Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Carl-Neuberg-Street 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Dawid PieperFaculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Rüdersdorf, Germany.
Ronny KlawunnHannover Medical School (MHH), Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Carl-Neuberg-Street 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Hala AltawilHannover Medical School (MHH), Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Carl-Neuberg-Street 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Marie-Luise DierksHannover Medical School (MHH), Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Carl-Neuberg-Street 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Cosima JohnHannover Medical School (MHH), Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Carl-Neuberg-Street 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFocus groups (FGs) are an established method in health research to capture a full range of different perspectives on a particular research question. The extent to which they are effective depends, not least, on the composition of the participants. This study aimed to investigate how published FG studies plan and conduct the recruitment of study participants. We looked at what kind of information is reported about recruitment practices and what this reveals about the comprehensiveness of the actual recruitment plans and practices.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of FG studies in PubMed and Web of Science published between 2018 and 2024, and included n = 80 eligible publications in the analysis. We used a text extraction sheet to collect all relevant recruitment information from each study. We then coded the extracted text passages and summarised the findings descriptively.

resultsNearly half (n = 38/80) of the studies were from the USA and Canada, many addressing issues related to diabetes, cancer, mental health and chronic diseases. For recruitment planning, 20% reported a specific sampling target, while 6% used existing studies or literature for organisational and content planning. A further 10% reported previous recruitment experience of the researchers. The studies varied in terms of number of participants (range = 7-202) and group size (range = 7-20). Recruitment occurred often in healthcare settings, rarely through digital channels and everyday places. FG participants were most commonly recruited by the research team (21%) or by health professionals (16%), with less collaboration with public organisations (10%) and little indication of the number of people involved (13%). A financial incentive for participants was used in 43% of cases, and 19% reported participatory approaches to plan and carry out recruitment. 65 studies (81%) reported a total of 58 limitations related to recruitment.

conclusionsThe reporting of recruitment often seems to be incomplete, and its performance lacking. Hence, guidelines and recruitment recommendations designed to assist researchers are not yet adequately serving their purpose. Researchers may benefit from more practical support, such as early training on key principles and options for effective recruitment strategies provided by institutions in their immediate professional environment, e.g. universities, faculties or scientific associations.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchFocus GroupsPatient SelectionHumansResearch DesignFocus groupsHealth researchParticipant selectionQualitative methodsRecruitingRecruitmentStudy participants

Identifiers

PMID39810091
PMCPMC11730470

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.