Table 2.
Comparisons by most efficient and lowest cost sites
| Characteristic | By recruitment efficiency | By recruitment cost | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Most efficienta | Others | Lowest costa | Others | |
| (n = 7) | (n = 18) | (n = 7) | (n = 18) | |
| Site characteristics | ||||
| Practice size (total GP FTE), mean (SD) | 4.39 (2.21) | 7.31 (4.59) | 7.13 (4.05) | 6.24 (4.39) |
| Rural location | 2 (29%) | 2 (11%) | 2 (29%) | 2 (11%) |
| Socioeconomic indexb | ||||
| 1/2 | 2 (29%) | 6 (33%) | 4 (57%) | 4 (22%) |
| 3 | 4 (57%) | 3 (17%) | 1 (14%) | 6 (33%) |
| 4/5 | 1 (14%) | 9 (50%) | 2 (29%) | 8 (44%) |
| Clinical audit tools | ||||
| ≥ 2 tools available | 2 (29%) | 1 (6%) | 1 (14%) | 2 (11%) |
| Training to use tools | 7 (100%) | 14 (82%) | 7 (100%) | 14 (82%) |
| Research culture | ||||
| Concurrently involved in other studies | 5 (71%) | 10 (56%) | 5 (71%) | 10 (56%) |
| If other studies were also diabetes-related | 1 (20%) | 5 (50%) | 2 (40%) | 4 (40%) |
| Involved in ≥ 2 studies in last 3 years | 4 (57%) | 11 (61%) | 7 (100%) | 8 (44%) |
| Site support | ||||
| Nurse/administrative support (very high/high) | 7 (100%) | 14 (78%) | 7 (100%) | 14 (78%) |
| GP support (very high/high) | 7 (100%) | 14 (78%) | 6 (86%) | 15 (83%) |
| Recruitment support | ||||
| Access to eligibility information (very easy/easy) | 7 (100%) | 15 (83%) | 7 (100%) | 15 (83%) |
| Medical staff (practice nurse/GP) responsible for identifying potential patients | 4 (57%) | 4 (22%) | 2 (29%) | 6 (33%) |
| Practice nurse coordinate contacting patients | 6 (86%) | 9 (50%) | 5 (71%) | 10 (56%) |
| Study coordinator’s perspective on recruitment | ||||
| Very easy/easy | 6 (86%) | 11 (61%) | 7 (100%) | 10 (56%) |
| Manageable | 1 (14%) | 2 (11%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (17%) |
| Difficult/very difficult | 0 (0%) | 5 (28%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (28%) |
a25th percentile
b1/2 most disadvantaged; 4/5 most advantaged