Recruiting and retaining general practitioners to a primary care asthma-intervention study in Australia

Barriers and facilitators to general practitioners participating in implementation research: a mixed methods systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the review is to critically appraise and synthesize quantitative and qualitative evidence on the barriers and facilitators to general practitioners participating in implementation research for the purposes of evaluating translation of evidence into practice.

INTRODUCTION

General practice is a distinct medical specialty that requires its own specific research; therefore, general practitioner participation in research is key in translating new knowledge into practice. However, recruiting general practitioners to research as participants is challenging. Understanding general practitioner behavior in relation to their participation in implementation research is critical.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Implementation studies that include general practitioners in primary health care settings will be considered. This review will consider quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies from developed countries investigating barriers and facilitators to general practitioners participating in implementation research.

METHODS

The review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for mixed methods systematic reviews. The main databases accessed will be MEDLINE and Scopus, and include studies published in English between 2008 and the present. Two independent reviewers will read and screen relevant articles, assess for quality, extract study characteristics, and synthesize data. This review is taking an integrated approach involving transformed quantitative data. Primary outcome measures will include study details and outcomes related to the research question. Qualitative and transformed quantitative data will be mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework at extraction phase. Synthesis will include identified barriers and facilitators categorized using the Theoretical Domains Framework indicators to provide future research and implementation recommendations for recruiting general practitioners to implementation research.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO (CRD42020176759).

Strategies for recruitment in general practice settings: the iSOLVE fall prevention pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Falls are common among older people, and General Practitioners (GPs) could play an important role in implementing strategies to manage fall risk. Despite this, fall prevention is not a routine activity in general practice settings. The iSOLVE cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to evaluate implementation of a fall prevention decision tool in general practice. This paper sought to describe the strategies used and reflect on the enablers and barriers relevant to successful recruitment of general practices, GPs and their patients.

Methods

Recruitment was conducted within the geographical area of a Primary Health Network in Northern Sydney, Australia. General practices and GPs were engaged via online surveys, mailed invitations to participate, educational workshops, practitioner networks and promotional practice visits. Patients 65 years or older were recruited via mailed invitations, incorporating the practice letterhead and the name(s) of participating GP(s). Observations of recruitment strategies, results and enabling factors were recorded in field notes as descriptive and narrative data, and analysed using mixed-methods.

Results

It took 19 months to complete recruitment of 27 general practices, 75 GPs and 560 patients. The multiple strategies used to engage general practices and GPs were collectively useful in reaching the targeted sample size. Practice visits were valuable in engaging GPs and staff, establishing interest in fall prevention and commitment to the trial. A mix of small, medium and large practices were recruited. While some were recruited as a whole-practice, other practices had few or half of the number of GPs recruited. The importance of preventing falls in older patients, simplicity of research design, provision of resources and logistic facilitation of patient recruitment appealed to GPs. Recruitment of older patients was successfully achieved by mailed invitations which was a strategy that was familiar to practice staff and patients. Patient response rates were above the expected 10% for most practices. Many practices (n = 17) achieved the targeted number of 20 or more patients.

Conclusions

Recruitment in general practice settings can be successfully achieved through multiple recruitment strategies, effective communication and rapport building, ensuring research topic and design suit general practice needs, and using familiar communication strategies to engage patients.

Trial registration

The trial was prospectively registered on 29 April 2015 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry www.anzctr.org.au (trial ID: ACTRN12615000401550).

General practitioner-delivered adherence counseling in asthma: feasibility and usefulness of skills, training and support tools

OBJECTIVE

Poor medication adherence contributes to uncontrolled asthma in primary care. Good doctor-patient communication around adherence increases patients' medication taking but general practitioners (GPs) often feel poorly equipped to provide effective adherence counseling. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and usefulness of adherence counseling training, skills and support tools for GPs.

METHODS

Twenty-five GPs enrolled in a 6-month cluster randomized-controlled trial of adherence interventions for asthma were randomized to an intervention delivering personalized adherence discussions. They received 2 hours training in delivering brief, motivational-interviewing-based adherence counseling and were provided with asthma-specific counseling support tools. At baseline, post-training and study end, GPs rated the training, reported confidence/frequency of using counseling skills and satisfaction with their consultations, and commented on support tools. Patients reported their barriers to adherence and rated their GPs empathy at baseline and at 6-months.

RESULTS

96% of GPs rated adherence counseling training as very/extremely useful. At the end of the study (17 ± 4 months) GPs' confidence in using counseling skills increased, as did the frequency they applied the skills and their satisfaction with consultations. GPs were positive about counseling support tools, stating that they were easy to use and facilitated covering more ground within single consultations. Half the GPs expressed some difficulty implementing counseling due to time constraints. Patients reported good GP empathy and no significant change in adherence barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs valued counseling training and support tools. Although implementation was sometimes challenging, GPs reported increased frequency of use and confidence in applying adherence counseling skills, which persisted for 17 months.

Barriers and facilitators to patient recruitment to a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care: lessons for future trials

Background

Primary-care based randomized controlled trials (RCTs) build an important evidence base for general practice but little evidence exists about barriers to recruitment which often hamper such trials.

We investigated the issues that impeded and facilitated recruitment to a clinical trial in general practice.

Methods

GPs participating in a cluster RCT that tested interventions for improving medication adherence and asthma control completed a survey comprising quantitative and free text questions about their recruitment experiences. We used backward regression to analyze quantitative data and coded free text responses into themes.

Results

40/55 of enrolled GPs recruited patients, but only one-third reached the planned recruitment target (5 patients/GP). In univariate analyses, poor patient recruitment by GPs was significantly associated with longer time to first patient enrolment, GP-perceived poor access to eligible patients and GP working in a practice training medical students. In regression analysis, only the first was significant (p = 0.001); the explained variance of the model was 48%. Themes from free text responses described recruitment barriers at the level of GP (e.g. GPs excluding patients for whom research appeared too challenging), practice (e.g. practice cultures disempowered GPs), patient (e.g. reluctance to change treatment for research) and study (e.g. protocol requirements complicating recruitment). Facilitators included GPs perceiving good support from the research team.

Conclusion

Targeted recruitment support early in the recruitment phase may enhance recruitment rates. Over time, interventions to enhance a general practice research culture are also likely to enhance skills to recruit patients, even for complex interventions. We recommend systematic evaluation of recruitment approaches and outcomes in future RCTs to optimize feasibility and success of these important trials.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000854033 (date registered 14/10/2010).

Recruiting general practitioners as participants for qualitative and experimental primary care studies in Australia

Recruiting general practitioners (GPs) for participation in primary care research is vitally important, but it can be very difficult for researchers to engage time-poor GPs. This paper describes six different strategies used by a research team recruiting Australian GPs for three qualitative interview studies and one experimental study, and reports the response rates and costs incurred. Strategies included: (1) mailed invitations via Divisions of General Practice; (2) electronic newsletters; (3) combining mailed invitations and newsletter; (4) in-person recruitment at GP conferences; (5) conference satchel inserts; and (6) combining in-person recruitment and satchel inserts. Response rates ranged from 0 (newsletter) to 30% (in-person recruitment). Recruitment costs per participant ranged from A$83 (in-person recruitment) to A$232 (satchel inserts). Mailed invitations can be viable for qualitative studies, especially when free/low-cost mailing lists are used, if the response rate is less important. In-person recruitment at GP conferences can be effective for short quantitative studies, where a higher response rate is important. Newsletters and conference satchel inserts were expensive and ineffective.