Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
. 2018 Oct 25;19(1):584.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2964-1.

Improving trial recruitment processes: how qualitative methodologies can be used to address the top 10 research priorities identified within the PRioRiTy study

Marita Hennessy  1   2 , Andrew Hunter  3   4 , Patricia Healy  4   5 , Sandra Galvin  4   5 , Catherine Houghton  3   5
Affiliations
Comment

Improving trial recruitment processes: how qualitative methodologies can be used to address the top 10 research priorities identified within the PRioRiTy study

Marita Hennessy et al. Trials. .

Abstract

How can we improve recruitment to trials? In their recently published paper, Healy et al. outline the top 10 prioritised questions for trial recruitment research identified by the PRioRiTy study. The challenge now is for researchers to answer these questions; but how best can these be answered? In this commentary, we illustrate how qualitative research can be utilised to generate in-depth insight into trial recruitment issues, either as a stand-alone methodology, or through a mixed-methods approach. Consideration is given to how different forms of qualitative research can be used to address these priorities and to help researchers set out an agenda to optimise its value.

Keywords: Documentary analysis; Focus groups; Interviews; Mixed-methods; Observation; Priorities; Qualitative; Qualitative evidence synthesis; RCT; Randomised trials; Trial methodology; Trial recruitment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ information

PH and SG are on behalf of the PRioRiTy study team, listed at https://priorityresearch.ie/.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Comment on

References

    1. Healy P, Galvin S, Williamson PR, Treweek S, Whiting C, Maeso B, et al. Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership—the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2018;19(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2544-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Donovan J, Little P, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, et al. Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. BMJ. 2002;325(7367):766–770. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. O'Cathain A, Thomas K J, Drabble S J, Rudolph A, Hewison J. What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open. 2013;3(6):e002889. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002889. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Plano Clark VL, Schumacher K, West C, Edrington J, Dunn LB, Harzstark A, et al. Practices for embedding an interpretive qualitative approach within a randomized clinical trial. J Mix Methods Res. 2013;7(3):219–242. doi: 10.1177/1558689812474372. - DOI
    1. O’Cathain A, Goode J, Drabble SJ, Thomas KJ, Rudolph A, Hewison J. Getting added value from using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials: a qualitative interview study. Trials. 2014;15(1):215. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-215. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources