Table 4.
RECRUIT SUGGESTIONS | |
---|---|
Doctors as gatekeepers (pros and cons about this)* | P, C |
CHW’s/coordinators to introduce research and engage patients* | P, C |
Social service, clergy, advocates as gatekeepers | P |
Go through trusted organizations | P |
Transparency with possible benefits to patients* | P, C |
Identify and honor language preferences | P |
No texts-don’t trust from stranger (could use for follow-up) | P |
Text and email patients | C |
Mail or phone call from someone from their institution | P |
Approach person in waiting room if recruiter from that site. | P |
Don’t cold contact patients | C |
Use fundraisers for recruitment | P |
Use local research champions within practices | C |
Have dedicated research staff to speak/enroll patient (warm handoff) | C |
Research staff should look like patients | P |
New consent strategies (video consent) | C |
Social media to advertise for research (especially for young)* | P, C |
Create referral tool and process for docs to use | C |
Incentives for patients | C |
RECRUIT CHALLENGES | |
No clinical/research separation (baby/bathwater) | P |
Research futilism (research to date hasn’t made impact) | P |
Trust-Petri dish/victimization concerns | P |
Acknowledge past abuses in research before taking part | P |
Don’t trust people outside their own hospital/clinic | P |
Don’t direct contact-will scare people that their info was released | P |
Want to know who sponsors research before take part* | P, C |
Socio-Economic patient issues (several comorbidities) | C |
Consenting when patients have an appointment is too time consuming | C |
Consenting by EMR is too time consuming for provider | C |
Patients scared of term “research” | C |
Disruption to clinical workflow | C |
Time burden on patient | P |
denotes patient and clinician agreement