Skip to main content

How to Engage Occupational Physicians in Recruitment of Research Participants: A Mixed-Methods Study of Challenges and Opportunities

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation volume 24, pages 68–78 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose To investigate barriers and facilitators for research participant recruitment by occupational physicians (OPs). Methods A mixed-methods approach was used. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with OPs to explore perceived barriers and facilitators for recruitment. Based on data of a cluster-randomised controlled trial (cluster-RCT), univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to investigate associations between OPs’ personal and work characteristics and the number of recruited participants for the cluster-RCT per OP. Results Perceived barriers and facilitators for recruitment were categorised into: study characteristics (e.g. concise inclusion criteria); study population characteristics; OP’s attention; OP’s workload; context (e.g. working at different locations); and OP’s characteristics (e.g. motivated to help). Important facilitators were encouragement by colleagues and reminders by information technology tools. Multivariate analyses showed that the number of OPs within the clinical unit who recruited participants was positively associated with the number of recruited participants per OP [rate ratio of 1.43, 95 % confidence interval 1.24–1.64]. Conclusions When mobilising OPs for participant recruitment, researchers need to engage entire clinical units rather than approach OPs on an individual basis. OPs consider regular communication, especially face-to-face contact and information technology tools serving as reminders, as helpful.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bower P, Wilson S, Mathers N. Short report: how often do UK primary care trials face recruitment delays? Fam Pract. 2007;24:601–3.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. van der Wouden JC, Blankenstein AH, Huibers MJ, van der Windt DA, Stalman WA, Verhagen AP. Survey among 78 studies showed that Lasagna’s law holds in Dutch primary care research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:819–24.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Harris EL, Fitzgerald JD. Association of Medical Advisers in the Pharmaceutical Industry. The principles and practice of clinical trials: based on a symposium organised by the Association of Medical Advisers in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Edinburgh etc.: Livingstone; 1970.

  5. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:1143–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Moore D, Wilson S, Damery S. Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2012;6(2):e000496.

    Google Scholar 

  7. van der Klink JJ, Blonk RW, Schene AH, van Dijk FJ. Reducing long term sickness absence by an activating intervention in adjustment disorders: a cluster randomised controlled design. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:429–37.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rodriguez-Blanco T, Fernandez-San-Martin I, Balague-Corbella M, Berenguera A, Moix J, Montiel-Morillo E, et al. Study protocol of effectiveness of a biopsychosocial multidisciplinary intervention in the evolution of non-specific sub-acute low back pain in the working population: cluster randomised trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;12(10):12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. de Vente W, Kamphuis JH, Emmelkamp PM, Blonk RW. Individual and group cognitive-behavioral treatment for work-related stress complaints and sickness absence: a randomized controlled trial. J Occup Health Psychol. 2008;13:214–31.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Heikkinen A, Launis V, Wainwright P, Leino-Kilpi H. Privacy and occupational health services. J Med Ethics. 2006;32:522–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. London L. Dual loyalties and the ethical and human rights obligations of occupational health professionals. Am J Ind Med. 2005;47:322–32.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Steenstra IA, van der Beek AJ, Frings-Dresen MHW, Burdorf A, Bongers PM, van Mechelen W. Uitvoering van interventieonderzoek in de bedrijfsgezondheidszorg. Wat gaat goed, wat kan beter? [Conducting intervention research in occupational health care. What is going well, what can be done better?]. TBV. 2005;13:242–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. de Wit NJ, Quartero AO, Zuithoff AP, Numans ME. Participation and successful patient recruitment in primary care. J Fam Pract. 2001;50:976.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370:1453–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Arends I, van der Klink JJ, Bultmann U. Prevention of recurrent sickness absence among employees with common mental disorders: design of a cluster-randomised controlled trial with cost-benefit and effectiveness evaluation. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:132.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23:334–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33:77–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24:105–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Twisk JWR. Inleiding in de toegepaste biostatistiek [Introduction to applied biostatistics]. Amsterdam: Elsevier gezondheidszorg; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the OPs of the focus groups and interviews for their time and valuable information. We would also like to thank the OHS, 365/ArboNed, for providing the administrative data. This Project was supported by the Work Disability Prevention Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategic Training Program Grant (FRN: 53909) and by a Grant from Stichting Instituut GAK, a Dutch funding agency. The authors were independent of the funders and the funders had no role in the project.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, A. Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Iris Arends, Ute Bültmann, Corné Roelen & Jac J. L. van der Klink

  2. Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 71 Franklin Road, Hopkinton, MA, USA

    William S. Shaw

  3. Center for Human Resource, Organization and Management Effectiveness, Business University Nyenrode, Straatweg 25, 3621 BG, Breukelen, The Netherlands

    Willem van Rhenen

  4. 365 Occupational Health Services, Zwarte Woud 10, 3524 SJ, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Willem van Rhenen & Corné Roelen

  5. Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK

    Karina Nielsen

Authors
  1. Iris Arends
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ute Bültmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William S. Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Willem van Rhenen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Corné Roelen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Karina Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jac J. L. van der Klink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iris Arends.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arends, I., Bültmann, U., Shaw, W.S. et al. How to Engage Occupational Physicians in Recruitment of Research Participants: A Mixed-Methods Study of Challenges and Opportunities. J Occup Rehabil 24, 68–78 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-013-9452-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-013-9452-y

Keywords

  • Participant recruitment
  • RCT
  • Barriers and facilitators
  • Occupational health care
  • Mixed-methods