Evidence mapPaperPMID 40764906Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2025

Two sides of the same coin: recruitment performance and perceived workload in primary care trials-insights from the AgeWell.de study.

Linda Sanftenberg, Robert Philipp Kosilek, Lorenz Birnberger, Hannah Schillok, Felix Wittmann, Melanie Luppa, Anne Blawert, Melanie Boekholt, Christian Brettschneider, Hans-Helmut König and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

20 authors.

Linda Sanftenberg *Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336, Munich, Germany. Linda.Sanftenberg@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Robert Philipp Kosilek *Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Lorenz BirnbergerInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Hannah SchillokInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Felix WittmannMedical Faculty, Leipzig, Institute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Melanie LuppaMedical Faculty, Leipzig, Institute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Anne BlawertGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Site Rostock/Greifswald, 17489, Greifswald, Germany.
Melanie BoekholtGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Site Rostock/Greifswald, 17489, Greifswald, Germany.
Christian BrettschneiderDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Hans-Helmut KönigDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Alexander BauerInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, 06112, Halle, Germany.
Solveig WeiseInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, 06112, Halle, Germany.
Thomas FreseInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, 06112, Halle, Germany.
Hanna KaduszkiewiczInstitute of General Practice, University of Kiel, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Juliane DöhringInstitute of General Practice, University of Kiel, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Catharina EscalesInstitute of General Practice, University of Kiel, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Jochen René ThyrianGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Site Rostock/Greifswald, 17489, Greifswald, Germany.
Birgitt WieseWork Group Medical Statistics and IT-Infrastructure, Institute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Steffi G Riedel-Heller *Medical Faculty, Leipzig, Institute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Jochen Gensichen *Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment through general practitioners (GPs) is a key challenge in primary care trials. Understanding how individual, practice, and regional characteristics affect recruitment and perceived workload could help optimize participation strategies. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators to patient recruitment within the AgeWell.de dementia prevention trial.

methodsWe analysed publicly available data on GPs participating in the AgeWell.de trial, including their sociodemographic characteristics, practice structures, and socioeconomic indicators of their practice locations, alongside recruitment and survey data. We used correlation analysis and uni- and multivariable regression models to explore determinants of study engagement in terms of recruitment performance and perceived workload.

resultsAmong 120 participating GPs, a total of 1,173 patients were recruited, though contributions varied widely. The top 20% of recruiters (Q5) accounted for 42.1% of all participants, while the lowest quintile (Q1) recruited just 3.2%. GPs with a doctorate degree recruited more patients (IRR = 1.45, p < 0.05). Higher perceived workload was linked to increased recruitment engagement (IRR = 1.30, p < 0.1). In contrast, larger practice teams were associated with lower perceived workload (OR = 0.71, p < 0.1).

conclusionGP recruitment performance and perceived workload are closely linked, influenced by both individual research interest and structural support. The disproportionate recruitment burden among a small subset of GPs highlights the need for strategies to engage low recruiters and support high performers. Strengthening practice-based research networks, could help make research involvement more feasible for a wider range of GPs. Trail registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS; trial identifier: DRKS00013555); Date of Registration: 2017-12-07.

Indexed as

General PractitionersPatient SelectionPrimary Health CareWorkloadAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedBarriers and facilitatorsGeneral practitionerPatient recruitmentPractice-based research networksRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID40764906
PMCPMC12326823

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.