title: Researchers' and clinicians' perceptions of recruiting participants to clinical research: a thematic meta-synthesis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Recruiting the desired number of research participants is frequently problematic with resulting financial and clinical implications. The views of individuals responsible for participant recruitment have not been previously reviewed. This systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis explores researchers' and clinicians' experiences and perceptions of recruiting participants to clinical research, with the aim of informing improved recruitment systems and strategies.
  
  
  METHODS
  Studies published between January 1995 and May 2013 were identified from: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PSYCHINFO, ASSIA, British Nursing Index, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and PubMed. Included studies were original peer reviewed research, with qualitative methodologies and an aim of exploring the views of clinicians and/or researchers on recruitment to clinical research. Studies discussing the recruitment of patients unable to give informed consent were excluded. The findings sections of the relevant studies were free coded to identify key concepts which were grouped into hierarchical themes. The quality of the identified studies was assessed and the relative contribution of each paper was checked to ensure individual studies did not dominate in any theme.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Eighteen relevant papers were identified which examined the views of researchers and clinicians in 10 clinical specialties. Five main themes emerged: building a research community, securing resources, the nature of research, professional identities and recruitment strategies. The views of researchers and clinicians were similar, although the role of 'researcher' was inconsistently defined.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The general experience of recruiting participants to clinical research was one of competition and compromise. Competition arose over funding, staffing and participants, and between clinical and research responsibilities. Compromise was needed to create study designs that were acceptable to patients, clinicians and researchers. Forging relationships between clinical and research teams featured extensively, however the involvement of patients and the public within the research community was rarely discussed.
authors.affiliation: NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, Guy's Hospital, SE1 9RT, UK.
authors.forename: Lisa
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Newington
authors.affiliation: Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building, Waterloo Road, SE1 8WA, UK.
authors.forename: Alison
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Metcalfe
keywords: Medical staff; Research personnel; Research subject recruitment; Systematic review
references.citation: Midwifery. 2012 Feb;28(1):131-7
references.pmid: 21459500
references.citation: J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2007 Sep;5(8):655-64
references.pmid: 17927923
references.citation: Lancet. 2001 May 19;357(9268):1543
references.pmid: 11377635
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 2002 Jun;23(3):289-98
references.pmid: 12057880
references.citation: J Natl Med Assoc. 2001 Nov;93(11):450-7
references.pmid: 11730121
references.citation: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003 Jun;26(5):287-92
references.pmid: 12819624
references.citation: Hastings Cent Rep. 2009 Jul-Aug;39(4):26-36
references.pmid: 19711632
references.citation: Fam Pract. 2003 Feb;20(1):83-92
references.pmid: 12509377
references.citation: Bioethics. 2004 Sep;18(5):448-70
references.pmid: 15462026
references.citation: Contemp Clin Trials. 2007 Jan;28(1):1-5
references.pmid: 16904951
references.citation: BMJ Open. 2012 Jan 06;2(1):e000496
references.pmid: 22228729
references.citation: J Intern Med. 2000 Dec;248(6):463-74
references.pmid: 11155139
references.citation: West J Nurs Res. 2007 Jun;29(4):486-500
references.pmid: 17538128
references.citation: Clin Trials. 2006;3(5):486-92
references.pmid: 17060222
references.citation: J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2006 Sep;31(3):173-9; discussion 180-91
references.pmid: 16954097
references.citation: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2003 Jun;12(2):114-22
references.pmid: 12787008
references.citation: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2006 May;15(2):146-54
references.pmid: 16643262
references.citation: Int J Pharm Pract. 2010 Dec;18(6):377-83
references.pmid: 21054599
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2004 Apr 12;164(7):801-3
references.pmid: 15078651
references.citation: Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2008;42(4):358-63
references.pmid: 19230168
references.citation: Oncology. 2008;74(3-4):177-87
references.pmid: 18714166
references.citation: BMJ. 2007 Mar 10;334(7592):521
references.pmid: 17329313
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2012 Feb;74(4):574-81
references.pmid: 22236642
references.citation: Clin Trials. 2011 Oct;8(5):616-23
references.pmid: 21813584
references.citation: Br J Cancer. 2011 May 10;104(10):1535-43
references.pmid: 21487408
references.citation: Oncol Nurs Forum. 2004 May;31(3):610-4
references.pmid: 15146226
references.citation: Placenta. 2011 Jul;32(7):511-5
references.pmid: 21524791
references.citation: AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2007 Aug;21(8):551-63
references.pmid: 17711380
references.citation: BMJ. 2000 Jan 1;320(7226):50-2
references.pmid: 10617534
references.citation: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jul 10;8:45
references.pmid: 18616818
references.citation: J N Y State Nurses Assoc. 2010 Spring-Summer;41(1):11-3; quiz 22
references.pmid: 20882821
references.citation: Health Technol Assess. 2007 Nov;11(48):iii, ix-105
references.pmid: 17999843
references.citation: Cancer. 2002 Oct 1;95(7):1584-91
references.pmid: 12237929
references.citation: BMJ Open. 2013 Feb 07;3(2):
references.pmid: 23396504
references.citation: J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 Jul;5(3):164-9
references.pmid: 11183627
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2010 Jan;36(1):37-45
references.pmid: 20026692
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 1998 Oct;35(2):111-25
references.pmid: 10026554
references.citation: Nurs Ethics. 2006 Nov;13(6):649-60
references.pmid: 17193805
references.citation: Contemp Clin Trials. 2012 Sep;33(5):925-32
references.pmid: 22732312
references.citation: Fam Pract. 2003 Dec;20(6):675-81
references.pmid: 14701891
references.citation: Cancer. 2002 Oct 1;95(7):1577-83
references.pmid: 12237928
references.citation: Fam Pract. 2009 Feb;26(1):48-55
references.pmid: 19011173
references.citation: Trials. 2007 Jan 27;8:4
references.pmid: 17257440
references.citation: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 May 19;11:73
references.pmid: 21595906
references.citation: Nurs Res. 2003 Jul-Aug;52(4):270-3
references.pmid: 12867785
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 1997 Aug;18(4):328-52
references.pmid: 9257072
references.citation: Trials. 2006 Apr 07;7:9
references.pmid: 16603070
references.citation: Res Nurs Health. 2008 Apr;31(2):141-51
references.pmid: 18181136
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Apr 1;23(10):2201-7
references.pmid: 15800312
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Nov;73(2):280-5
references.pmid: 18715740
references.citation: Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1984 Nov 10;289(6454):1281-4
references.pmid: 6437520