| Title |
Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-10 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisa Newington, Alison Metcalfe |
| Abstract |
Recruiting the required number of participants is vital to the success of clinical research and yet many studies fail to achieve their expected recruitment rate. Increasing research participation is a key agenda within the NHS and elsewhere, but the optimal methods of improving recruitment to clinical research remain elusive. The aim of this study was to identify the factors that researchers perceive as influential in the recruitment of participants to clinically focused research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 56% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Chile | 1 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 33% |
| Scientists | 3 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 448 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 439 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 97 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 62 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 9% |
| Researcher | 38 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 34 | 8% |
| Other | 72 | 16% |
| Unknown | 103 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 86 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 79 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 35 | 8% |
| Psychology | 23 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 19 | 4% |
| Other | 86 | 19% |
| Unknown | 120 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,523,802
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#197
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,887
of 305,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.