recruitment methods for qualitative research

How to Recruit Participants for Qualitative Research (2022 Edition)

We explain best practices for recruiting participants for qualitative research that will help you save time and money.

Qualitative research, when executed correctly, explores and uncovers the emotional and cognitive motivations behind your target audience’s actions, behaviors, and opinions relative to your research objectives and goals.

So, the success of a qualitative research project depends on engaging the “right” participants—highly qualified, fitting the profile, enthusiastic and articulate. But research participant recruitment can be a resource “suck”, devouring time and money that could be used for the actual research, analysis and report writing. Let’s explore how to recruit the best, most qualified participants while saving both time and money.

6 Steps to Recruiting Quality Participants

From defining the objectives of your project to clarifying the factors and qualities of the participants you’ll need to meet those objectives, to creating the questions for the initial screening survey and follow up conversational screener that will identify qualified participants to setting a motivating incentive, the steps to a successful qualitative research project can be a lot. Let’s break it all down.

1. Hold a Stakeholder Meeting to Define Research Objectives

Before you begin the process to recruit participants for qualitative research , you need to define precisely what you're trying to achieve with the research. This information will be useful when crafting your screener questions, securing participants that fit the profile and even setting the incentive amount.

If you collaborate with other teams on a research project, the critical first step is to hold a stakeholders’ meeting to determine research objectives and ensure all stakeholders agree on those objectives.

Asking the questions that concisely define the purpose of your research project will also provide the parameters for exactly who the study should focus on. This will become your participant profile.

5 Sample Questions for a Stakeholder’s Meeting

What’s the objective of this project e.g., what do you want to learn?
What audience has the demographics, background, education, experience, skill, information you need to meet those objectives?
What do you already know in relation to the objectives?
How will your organization use the results of the research/What will your organization do with the learnings?
What are your concerns, if any, regarding this project? How will those concerns be met and managed?

Once you have the answers to these questions, you can move on to the next step.

2. Develop and Fine Tune Screener Survey Questions

Your screener survey allows you to cull potential participants quickly. This means the most important criteria for qualification/disqualification need to be at the beginning of the survey—both your non-negotiables (immediate disqualifiers) and your negotiables (subject-to-approval and/or less rigid disqualifiers).

In most cases, non-negotiables are concrete questions related to demographics, such as a candidate’s business, location, age, gender, ethnicity and past research participation. However, screening questions can also be identifying behaviors and/or opinions. For example, if you're looking for marketing professionals that use a specific type of software, use of this software and even use of this software over a specified amount of time might be a must to qualify.

Leading questions with transparent choices for response should be avoided. This can be achieved by offering some options in multiple-choice response lists that will mis-direct unqualified potential participants.

3. Assess For Articulateness and Enthusiasm in the Conversational Screen

When conducting a qualitative study, you are exploring the motivations behind behaviors and opinions . For example, if you're testing a website, you’re learning about participants’ journeys through the site and striving to understand what exactly drove their navigation choices.

Participants that are articulate and outgoing enough to examine and explain the logical process and emotional triggers that caused them to choose one path over the other are a must.

Finding these participants is one of the greatest challenges of a successful recruitment. Asking “Articulation Questions” that require time, thought and putting feelings into words, will help identify these participants.

Sample Articulation Questions

Think about the last book you read. Describe it and how it made you feel.
What is your thought process when you go shopping for groceries? How does that differ for different types of foods?
Describe the next vacation you want to take and why you want to go there.

Note that Articulation Questions in no way relate to the research topic. They are questions anyone can answer and will determine whether a candidate is more likely to answer with thought, in detail and openly sharing emotions versus only responding with the bare minimum.

4. Consider Using Advanced Screening

Speak directly with candidates : At Respondent , we provide the ability to conduct unique and advanced screening. One feature allows you to speak directly with candidates. Speaking directly with candidates will help determine if a candidate can elaborate in their answers and offer the detail needed.

Avoid imposters : Because of the incentives offered for research participation, there are people who attempt to participate in any and all research projects whether they qualify or not. Some will create fake email accounts and lie in their screener responses to qualify. Having one of these imposters slip through and take the place of a qualified participant can skew research results. Respondent pre-vets candidates through their social media accounts and the requirement of having a valid business email. This guards against any posers slipping through.

Participant Ratings : Another Respondent safeguard encourages researchers to rate participants. After a study, a survey is sent out to rate the effectiveness of each of your participants as:

Poor (did not meet expectations)
Good (met expectations)
Great (exceeded expectations)

For Respondent researchers, participant rating is a unique and an important element in the recruiting process.

5. The Importance of Over-Recruiting

No matter how diligent you are in your recruiting, there will likely be no-shows. So, it's a good idea to always over-recruit.

For focus groups it’s common practice to recruit two additional participants per group e.g., recruit 10 to seat 8 per group. If 9 or even 10 show up, it’s up to the moderator and client if all participants will be included in the focus group or not. Keep in mind that all participants who show up, whether they are asked to participate or not must be paid their incentive.

For I-D-Is (one-on-one interviews), recruit several back-up participants that can be contacted and scheduled to replace any no-shows. Again, it’s up to the moderator and client if all who have been recruited will be interviewed or not.

Respondent makes no-show and replacement management easy. If you have an I-D-I participant that doesn't show up, mark them as "no-show." Respondent will immediately contact you, asking if you want us to identify a replacement from your previously vetted participant pool. The replacement participant will be scheduled as a make up for your no-show. Respondent will not charge for the recruiting of no-shows.

6. Offer Fair & Quick Compensation

Determining what type and the amount of the incentive for participants can be a challenge. The amount needs to be motivating for participants to first agree to participate and then to actually show-up. The amount offered must also fit within the research budget. This can be a balancing act.

Typically, the longer a participant is needed, the larger your incentive needs to be. Additionally, the location of the study must be considered. Higher compensation will be necessary for an in-person study versus a remote one.

Individuals in certain professions and at higher income levels will not be as motivated by an incentive. Larger incentives must be offered to these participants for both a timely and successful recruit and to encourage their attendance.

Respondent handles the payment of participant incentives which can be a hassle and time-consuming. Simply indicate that a participant has shown up and participated and Respondent takes care of payment.

Recruiting Made Quick and Easy with Respondent

Following the steps to have a successful recruit which leads to a successful project traditionally has been difficult, time consuming and costly. Respondent offers solutions that streamlines and accelerates the process while providing the highest quality participants you can be confident in and all this at reasonable costs. Give Respondent a try.

Recommend Resources:

The Best UX Research Tools of 2022
10 Smart Tips for Conducting Better User Interviews
50 Powerful Questions You Should Ask In Your Next User Interview
How To Present Your User Research Findings
Qualitative Research Questions: Gain Powerful Insights + 25 Examples

5 Researchers Share Why They Love Respondent For User Interviews

Read on to learn how five user researchers have used Respondent, and why they love it!

Remote Research: The Best Strategies for Successful User Interviews

By leveraging essential tips and solutions for remote research, organizations can optimize their efforts in the modern workplace. Here's how you do...

How To Uncover Blind Spots In Your User Research

If you're not conducting user interviews, you're missing out on critical insights. Here's how to uncover blind spots in your user research.

Examining the world through qualitative inquiry

recruitment methods for qualitative research

Recruiting participants for a qualitative research study

How do qualitative researchers locate potential participants for a study? What approaches might be used to recruit people? Clearly the easiest way to recruit people is to ask people you already know to participate in your study. This is potentially fraught with difficulty, however, since this is known as “convenience sampling”, which is typically perceived to be the weakest form of sampling. Of course there are exceptions to this. For example, if a researcher is doing an autoethnographic study, this would involve talking to people within the researcher’s friendship, family and professional circles (Chang, 2008). Yet, qualitative researchers use a variety of strategies to recruit people. Let’s look at some of these.

Recruiting via personal and professional connections

When researchers are “insiders” to the group that they are examining, then a first place to begin is to start with people who are known. This might mean seeking recommendations for potential participant from known others, and even asking for “expert recommendations”. It might be worthwhile to set up preliminary meetings with people who have a good deal of expertise in a field to ask for recommendations. For example, in my very first qualitative study which examined how music teachers dealt with inaccurate singers, I began by getting in touch with music advisors, and asking them for recommendations for exemplary teachers. I was able to interview music advisors as well as the teachers who they recommended to me. I also arranged visits to these schools for observations. In the same study, I was also able to talk to recognized experts in the field of music education. I was very fortunate at the time to be working with an adviser who was organizing an international conference. She acted as a gate-keeper, in that she introduced me to many of these experts whom I was able to interview during the conference.

Gatekeepers – people who have administrative positions, or in-depth information about a particular setting — can be incredibly helpful, if not crucial, to gain access to a particular community of setting. Sometimes, although people who serve as “formal gatekeepers” to a particular setting may provide access for a research study, those who serve as “informal gatekeepers” may withhold access (Wanat, 2008). Rugkåsa and Canvin (2011) discuss issues that they found to have impacted gatekeepers’ attitudes towards allowing researchers access to a particular community (in their study, they were working with Black and minority ethnic communities in the UK). These included (non)payment of participants and reciprocal arrangements with local community groups. These researchers recommend that researchers use flexible recruitment strategies that attend to the local contexts in which research is being conducted. Let’s look further at the kinds of recruitment strategies used by researchers.

Recruiting via fliers, newspaper advertisements, emails and letters

As anyone who has spent time on a university campus will know, researchers frequently recruit participants via fliers and advertisements. Sometimes, but not always, payment for participation is included as an incentive. Another frequently used approach is to send email or letter requests to people thought to meet sampling criteria. Here, a researcher might purchase a mailing list, and locate people via the information provided with the mailing list, and send letters or emails. Similarly, recruitment notices can be sent via established listservs. It is useful to get in touch with the list-owner first, however, to check if these sorts of notice might be allowed on a listserv.

Recruiting through face-to-face interactions

Sometimes researchers uses face-to-face interactions as a primary method, recruiting in neighborhoods through knocking on doors (Freeman, 2000), standing on street corners (McCormack et al., 2013), or visiting boarding houses and airline terminals (Thomas, Bloor, & Frankland, 2007). Here, participants are not known to them, but are recruited on the spot. Putting oneself forward in these kinds of ways as a researcher may entail feelings of “relief, despair, embarrassment, hilarity and even hysteria” (Thomas et al., 2007, p. 435). What they refer to here is the emotional labor entailed in seeking people to participate in studies, yet experiencing repeated refusals.

Yet sometimes, even though researchers might use multiple recruitment methods, efforts appear to be futile. There are few, if any, volunteers. What is happening here?

Difficulties in recruitment for research studies

Researchers have written about some of the problems entailed in recruiting participants for research on sensitive topics (Butera, 2006; Culley, Hudson, & Rapport, 2007), private topics (McCormack, Adams, & Anderson, 2013),and stigmatized or illegal activities such as prostitution or drug-dealing (Dietze, 2002; Roth, 2012). Further, because of historical abuses perpetrated by researchers, some populations are rightly suspicious of becoming involved in research studies (Reverby, 2009; Skloot, 2010). To address some of these concerns, researchers have worked in participatory ways with community groups (Anthony, Lee, Barry, & Kappesser, 2010), and include members of the populations in which they are engaging with as co-researchers (Shelton & Rianon, 2004). They have also worked with bicultural recruiters (Rugkåsa & Canvin, 2011). Developing relationships with communities will likely take extended time in order to build relationships that will lead to successful recruitment of participants through information sharing and face-to-face interactions (Sixsmith, Boneham, & Goldring, 2003).

Although it is not possible to project a path to recruitment of participants that will always prove successful, researchers have been generous in sharing their recruitment challenges and the strategies that they have used. If you run into challenges with recruiting participants, take a look at what others have done. With more time, and through using a variety of recruitment methods, you will likely be successful. All the best with these efforts.

Kathy Roulston

NB: This post draws on information included in (Roulston & Martinez, 2015). For more information on sampling and selection, see LeCompte and Preissle (1993).

Anthony, J. S., Lee, R. C., Barry, D. G., & Kappesser, M. (2010). Recruiting and Keeping African American Women in an Ethnographic Study of Pregnancy: The Community-Based Partnership Model. Field Methods, 22 (2), 125-132. doi:10.1177/1525822×09358645

Butera, K. J. (2006). Manhunt The Challenge of Enticing Men to Participate in a Study on Friendship. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (6), 1262-1282.

Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Culley, L., Hudson, N., & Rapport, F. (2007). Using Focus Groups With Minority Ethnic Communities: Researching Infertility in British South Asian Communities. Qualitative Health Research, 17 (1), 102-112. doi:10.1177/1049732306296506

Dietze, P. (2002). Using ambulance attendances to recruit people who have experienced non-fatal heroin overdose. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 67 (1), 99.

Freeman, M. (2000). Knocking on Doors: On Constructing Culture. Qualitative Inquiry, 6 (3), 359.

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.

McCormack, M., Adams, A., & Anderson, E. (2013). Taking to the streets: the benefits of spontaneous methodological innovation in participant recruitment. Qualitative Research, 13 (2), 228-241.

Reverby, S. (2009). Examining Tuskegee : the infamous syphilis study and its legacy . University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill.

Roth, A. M. (2012). A methodological approach to improve the sexual health of vulnerable female Populations: incentivized peer-recruitment and field-based STD testing. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved, 23 (1), 367.

Roulston, K., & Martinez, B. (2015). Recruitment and sampling in consumer research. In P. Hackett (Ed.), Consumer ethnography: Qualitative and cultural approaches to consumer research . New York & London Routledge.

Rugkåsa, J., & Canvin, K. (2011). Researching Mental Health in Minority Ethnic Communities: Reflections on Recruitment. Qualitative Health Research, 21 (1), 132-143. doi:10.1177/1049732310379115

Shelton, A. J., & Rianon, N. J. (2004). Recruiting Participants from a Community of Bangladeshi Immigrants for a Study of Spousal Abuse: An Appropriate Cultural Approach. Qualitative Health Research, 14 (3), 369-380. doi:10.1177/1049732303261957

Sixsmith, J., Boneham, M., & Goldring, J. E. (2003). Accessing the Community: Gaining Insider Perspectives From the Outside. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (4), 578-589. doi:10.1177/1049732302250759

Skloot, R. (2010). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks . New York: Crown Publishers.

Thomas, M., Bloor, M., & Frankland, J. (2007). The process of sample recruitment: an ethnostatistical perspective. Qualitative Research, 7 (4), 429-446.

Wanat, C. L. (2008). Getting Past the Gatekeepers: Differences Between Access and Cooperation in Public School Research. Field Methods, 20 (2), 191-208. doi:10.1177/1525822×07313811

Published by qualpage

Kathy Roulston is a professor in the Qualitative Research program in the Department of Lifelong Education, Administration and Policy at the University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA. She teaches qualitative research methods, and has written on qualitative interviewing. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9429-2694 Kathryn J. Roulston on ResearchGate My books include: Interviewing: A guide to theory and practice, see: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/interviewing/book272521 Interactional studies of qualitative interviews. See: https://benjamins.com/catalog/z.220 View all posts by qualpage

One thought on “ Recruiting participants for a qualitative research study ”

Very useful

Recruitment of Community-Based Samples: Experiences and Recommendations for Optimizing Success

Anna garnett.

1 Arthur Labatt School of Nursing, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

Melissa Northwood

2 School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Recruitment in health and social science research is a critically important but often overlooked step in conducting successful research. The challenges associated with recruitment pertain to multiple factors such as enrolling groups with vulnerabilities, obtaining geographic, cultural, and ethnic representation within study samples, supporting the participation of less accessible populations such as older adults, and developing networks to support recruitment.

This paper presents the experiences of two early career researchers in recruiting community-based samples of older adults, their caregivers, and associated health providers.

Challenges and facilitators in recruiting two community-based qualitative research samples are identified and discussed in relation to the literature.

Challenges included: identifying potential participants, engaging referral partners, implementing multi-methods, and achieving study sample diversity. Facilitators included: making connections in the community, building relationships, and drawing on existing networks.

Conclusions

Findings suggest the need for greater recognition of the importance of having clear frameworks and strategies to address recruitment prior to study commencement as well as the need to have clear outreach strategies to optimize inclusion of marginalized groups. Recommendations and a guide are provided to inform the development of recruitment approaches of early career researchers in health and social science research.

Challenges pertaining to participant recruitment are often underappreciated and limit the successful conduct of community-based research within a variety of contexts. Description of recruitment methods tends to be underreported in the literature thus highlighting the gap in the knowledge base regarding effective strategies to overcome recruitment challenges ( Foster et al., 2011 ; Rockliffe et al., 2018 ). Given the complexity of the recruitment challenges described in the literature, there would be benefits from generating recommendations to consider when developing and implementing research with community-based populations. The aim of this paper is to describe the experiences of two early career researchers in recruiting community-based samples, to position these findings within the literature, and to provide recommendations to inform the recruitment of community-based samples.

Participant recruitment is a critical step in the conduct of health and social science research. In quantitative research, participant recruitment must meet sample size requirements that are large enough to be representative of the population of interest and have sufficient statistical power ( Gul & Ali, 2009 ). In qualitative research, sufficient recruitment is required to ensure data adequacy, namely a sample that reflects suitable size and composition to address the research question ( Vasileiou et al., 2018 ). The process of participant recruitment is often challenging, complex, and impacted by multiple factors including the availability of resources to fund targeted recruitment, the type of research being conducted, the potential participant demands associated with the research, and individual characteristics of recruiters and participants ( McDonald et al., 2006 ; Newington & Metcalfe, 2014 ; Treweek et al., 2010 ). For example, recruitment of groups who speak different languages or those who may not be actively engaged with the health care system may be more difficult to reach using standardized approaches such as databases and large-scale mail outs ( Newington & Metcalfe, 2014 ). The geographic location of potential participants can also impact recruitment in a variety of ways. For example, participant populations in rural settings may not be reached by common recruitment strategies such as flyers or in-person engagement via community hubs due to their remote locales ( Ellard-Gray et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, findings by a Canadian team of researchers suggest that it is important to “know” the desired sample within the greater community and then employ targeted recruitment strategies that are directed to the geographic locations or facilities frequented by the sample ( Williams et al., 2017 ).

Certain populations may be challenging to recruit including individuals from ethnic or racial minority groups, persons with disabilities, children, older adults, or persons of a two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, inquiring (2SLGBTQI+) orientation ( Flanagan & Hancock, 2010 ; Rockliffe et al., 2018 ). Factors impacting their recruitment include language barriers, ability to engage community leaders, mistrust rooted in historical oppression, fear, and abuse or prior negative experiences in accessing services ( Flanagan & Hancock, 2010 ; Rockliffe et al., 2018 ). As such, these populations are underrepresented in research leading to gaps in knowledge and potentially poorer health outcomes ( Rogers & Meek Lange, 2013 ; Winter et al., 2018 ). The effects of this underrepresentation can be multi-faceted, with some segments of the population never being represented in research and others who are more accessible being oversampled ( Kroll et al., 2007 ; Szabo et al., 2018 ).

Increasing representation of underrepresented groups is a common challenge experienced in recruitment but in some contexts, segments of the population may be oversampled, such as in major urban locations with teaching hospitals and abundant research programs ( Gilbert et al., 2012 ). Approaches to overcome these potential biases in recruitment and sampling include employing flexibility and willingness to meet participants within their own communities as pivotal for success ( Foster et al., 2011 ).

Community-based older adults represent a segment of the population that frequently experience chronic health conditions potentially resulting in physical limitations and a reduction in their social participation in research ( Griffith et al., 2017 ). While some older adults with chronic conditions may be high users of health care, limitations in mobility, cognition, and sensory function place them at risk of becoming homebound and therefore less likely to participate in research ( Crawford Shearer et al., 2010 ; Latham & Ackroyd-Stolarz, 2014 ). For example, visual disabilities, while not uncommon in older adults, may render traditional recruitment approaches using advertisements and letters of information which tend to be “text heavy” as unsuitable for reaching this population ( Banas et al., 2019 ). Older adults who are socially isolated or homebound may also be unreachable by other commonly used recruitment techniques such as snowball sampling or community engagement activities. Furthermore, older adults who are homebound may be reluctant to invite strangers into their home and therefore decline to participate in research when they are contacted ( Crawford Shearer et al., 2010 ).

Other factors that can adversely impact the recruitment of older adults include the presence of chronic conditions and their perceived meaning for older adults’ health. For example, common conditions that affect older adults, such as dementia, incontinence, falls, and depression, can be socially stigmatizing and thus adversely affect older adults’ willingness to disclose the conditions and discuss their experiences openly in a research context ( Flanagan & Hancock, 2010 ; Richeson & Shelton, 2006 ; Wyman et al., 2018 ). Moreover, older adults with chronic conditions may deem their declining health an inevitable and a “normal” part of aging and therefore be unwilling to engage in health care services, such as primary care providers, which serve as potential avenues for research recruitment ( Walters et al., 2001 ).

In addition to experiencing potential health challenges, older adults may be caregivers themselves, a role that can further impact their recruitment into research studies. Caregiving often involves an ongoing and constant commitment by caregivers, leaving them at heightened risk of emotional and financial stress, as well as declining health ( Camak, 2015 ; Garlo et al., 2010 ). Researchers must be sensitive to the demands on their time and energy yet also provide opportunities for their voices to be heard. This may entail recruiting caregivers during their daily activities such as meeting them at appointments and facilitating their research participation through convenient in-home interviews to reduce the likelihood of additional burden being placed on the caregivers. Furthermore, researchers must recognize that health providers, who can often facilitate participant recruitment, may deem caregivers as unsuitable for research due to fears of adverse events that could result from their participation ( Townsley et al., 2005 ). This may necessitate that additional time and relationship building must precede the recruitment process to optimize the opportunity for study success.

Recruitment challenges are well-described in the literature, but thus far there are limited resources to inform the development and implementation of research with community-based populations. The purpose of this study is to describe the experiences of two early career researchers in recruiting samples for their doctoral theses of community-based older adults, their caregivers, and associated health providers in southern Ontario, Canada; to situate our experiences within the context of the literature; and to outline a set of recommendations to guide the recruitment of participants within a variety of community-based settings and contexts.

Recruitment experiences: Two community-based studies

Study one synopsis.

Evidence has shown that family and friend caregivers of stroke survivors are significantly and negatively impacted by caregiving. The negative effects of caregiving may persist over time suggesting the need for ongoing care and support. However, little is known about caregivers’ use of formally funded health and social services or the factors influencing their access to and use of these services ( Garnett et al., 2021 ). Study one used a qualitative research design with an interpretive description approach to explore caregivers’ experiences accessing and using formal health and social services in southern Ontario. This was done to increase understanding of the context of stroke caregiving, service access, and factors impacting access to and use of formal health and social services. To capture the experience of caregiving over time, the inclusion criteria stipulated those caregivers who were providing support to a stroke survivor who experienced a stroke at least 6 months and up to 5 years ago were invited to participate. Recruitment took place over 6 months and a total of 22 stroke caregivers at an average of 30 months post-stroke and 18 health providers were recruited.

Study two synopsis

Urinary incontinence is a common complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus for older adults yet is often unrecognized and thereby untreated. In older adults, urinary incontinence is associated with reduced quality of life and risk of institutionalization. Study two used a convergent, mixed methods research design to better understand the complexity of living with type 2 diabetes and urinary incontinence in older adults who receive home-care services in southern Ontario, Canada to inform the development of home-care supportive interventions ( Northwood et al., 2019 ). In the qualitative strand, an interpretive descriptive approach was used, and one-on-one interviews were conducted with older home-care clients to understand their perspectives on managing incontinence and diabetes. As well, home-care nurses were interviewed to provide the “thoughtful practitioner” perspective and contribute their expert experiences formulated from caring for many older adults with diabetes and incontinence over time ( Thorne, 2016 , p. 92). Eighteen older adults and 15 home-care nurses were recruited over a 6-month period ( Northwood et al., 2021a , 2021b ).

Studies’ commonalities

Studies one and two had commonalities that facilitated our shared reflection on recruitment approaches. The first commonality was that older adult caregivers and older home-care clients are both community-dwelling populations that are not immediately or easily accessible as a group, for example, older hospital patients. A second commonality was that both studies employed an interpretive description design, and as such, recruited health care providers to triangulate what we learned from speaking directly to older adults and caregivers about their experiences with observations from health care providers in their care and support of these populations. Lastly, in both studies, we employed a variety of recruitment strategies and had similar rates of effectiveness. Refer to Table 1 for a summary of recruitment strategies by a number of participants across both studies.

Recruitment strategy by number of participants in studies 1 and 2.

Recruitment challenges of studies one and two

Identifying potential participants.

An initial challenge experienced in both studies was engaging participants in research while lacking a centralized location or system to identify these potential participants. Research conducted in controlled settings such as hospitals and publicly funded medical clinics often lends itself to participant identification using databases and clear alliances between universities and teaching hospitals. In contrast, community-based research often necessitates strategies to first identify the population of interest in the community before recruitment can commence. For example, caregivers may not be receiving services themselves and must be located using multi-pronged strategies such as community outreach, social media, and patient health providers acting as arm's length access points. Or older adults may be receiving home services from more than one organization which can complicate the process of accessing client information for research purposes.

To maximize recruitment success in study two, 10 study information sessions were held across a variety of settings, such as congregate exercise programs, retirement homes, diabetes education programs, and adult day programs to reach potential participants. In addition, informational postcards and posters were provided to assisted living buildings, municipal housing, home-care nurses, and diabetes educators. Of note, the caregivers and older adults receiving home-care services in study two were often homebound due to their health and caregiving roles, which meant that partnering with community health clinics was ineffective for identifying these potential study participants.

Engaging referral partners

Engaging community organizations as partners in recruitment strategies in both studies proved complicated and difficult to implement despite the agencies’ expressed enthusiasm to support the research. Communicating research information to potential participants via a variety of in-home clinicians ultimately proved untenable due to the clinicians’ already burdened caseload. Other logistical challenges hampered recruitment such as a restructure of the home-care sector resulted in a concomitant change in home-care coordinators’ roles, responsibilities, and reporting. This meant that these key potential facilitators of the recruitment process were now inaccessible.

Additional hurdles presented when lower than expected recruitment numbers necessitated expanding the geographic boundaries of one of the studies. This led to the requirement of further ethics approval from a new partnering hospital and added senior-level authorization from community-level partnerships. Ultimately these unanticipated hurdles were overcome, and successful recruitment was achieved but considerably more time and resources were required. Furthermore, as early career researchers, limited funding constrained the use of dedicated recruiters.

Implementing multi-methods

Using a multiple-pronged approach to recruitment was ultimately successful for our respective studies, however, our experiences highlighted the challenges potentially facing student and early career researchers. For example, as an independent researcher, publishing flyers, completing mail outs, and offering incentives were costly and expenses frequently ran higher than predicted to reach sample size goals. In the case of study one, some participants felt that an honorarium was not appropriate; they wanted their voices to be heard and felt compensation was counter to their motive to participate. Sampling that initially focused on one region was ultimately expanded to encompass broader geographic catchments due to low rates of recruitment. Changing the recruitment strategy necessitated greater time to build new relationships with key stakeholders, present the study information at multiple venues, and significantly increased study costs due to impact on time and travel. While each of these factors alone may not significantly hamper recruitment, experienced together, they can substantially delay the research process and must be anticipated to set realistic guidelines to meet study and granting agency expectations.

Study sample diversity

Attaining a racially, ethnically, and gender heterogeneous study sample was challenging in both studies. We acknowledge the contributing shortcomings of our respective study methodologies including inclusion criteria that stipulated only English speakers were eligible for participation and moderately sized geographic recruitment regions. Study one's sample included older adult participants from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds; however, there was limited racial variability across the sample. Study two included the use of geographic stratification in the recruitment strategy thereby obtaining a sample with good socioeconomic variability. However, in the case of both studies, recruitment strategies (e.g., stratifying sampling by racial, ethnic identity, gender, or using interpreters) that would have potentially improved diverse representation were not used. These strategies would also have required significant time and resources that were beyond the scope of the studies. We acknowledge that these limiting factors may have potentially excluded participants of more diverse racial, gender, and ethnic identities.

Both studies utilized focused strategies such as snowball and purposeful sampling in the later stages of participant recruitment to maximize the likelihood of increasing other gender representations in the studies. However, neither study sample had participants who identified as non-binary. We acknowledge that the attainment of a diverse sample should have received greater attention during the initial development of our recruitment strategies. In addressing sample diversity, researchers could proactively consult with community organizations that represent a range of underrepresented groups (e.g., Egale or culturally specific community organizations) to obtain advice, build relationships, and foster trust with these underrepresented groups.

Recruitment facilitators

Making connections in the community.

A key facilitator of successful recruitment within the context of these two health research studies was the assistance provided by a variety of community service organizations. These organizations were typically outside of the scope of mainstream health services, such as medical clinics and community hospitals, and included adult day programs, community organizations such as the YMCA, and caregiver support groups and associations. As researchers, it was important to understand that although the research was focused on understanding health service delivery and use, not all care needs of this population were met by health care services alone. By building diverse relationships with these other community partners, we founded strong alliances with organizations that also supported older adults and their caregivers. Furthermore, they had the interest and capacity to support recruitment when other organizations could not.

Building relationships

Building professional relationships with community partners was integral to establishing strong community connections. As early career researchers, we recognized that we did not yet have established and trusted relationships with community partners. Thus, senior researchers were key in this process of relationship development drawing upon the depth and breadth of their professional networks to facilitate introductions and help build and develop the working relationships we sought to develop as junior researchers. Often, they had pre-existing relationships with key stakeholders such as community diabetes programs or provincial stroke networks. Importantly, establishing relationships within the community should also focus on increasing opportunities to connect with marginalized populations such as those from racial or ethnic minorities and those who identify as 2SLGBTQI+.

These important introductions were just the initial step and we had to invest significant time being visible and engaged in the activities of community partners and this also enabled us as junior researchers to share our research expertise, our concern and role as advocates for change. These actions helped foster a trusting, reciprocal relationship with the community partners and potential participants. We determined that our visibility within the community was key to this process, ultimately being the most successful recruitment strategy, we used, in contrast to flyers or posters that resulted in little to no study participants.

Drawing on existing networks

An invaluable and initially underappreciated facilitator of recruitment turned out to be the networks we had developed during our previous and current clinical practice positions. As experienced gerontological nurses, we had many colleagues that supported the aims of our research and likewise were committed to improving integrated care for older adults and their caregivers. These professional networks included specialized geriatric and neurology services, nurse continence advisors, nursing association networks, and community support services. The generosity of these professionals in connecting us to their partner professions in other geographic locales effectively doubled and sometimes even tripled the number of individuals who were able to support our study recruitment. These experiences highlight the importance of exploring connections even if at first they seem distal to the study goal and purpose. For more junior researchers, this could mean connecting with student health associations or through professional organizations.

The purpose of this article was threefold: (1) to describe the experiences of two early career researchers in recruiting community-based samples of older adults and associated health providers in southern Ontario, Canada; (2) to situate the findings within the literature; and (3) to develop guidelines to facilitate recruitment of community-based samples. Study one used a qualitative approach to explore caregivers’ experiences accessing and using formal health and social services. Study two was a mixed-methods study to explore the complexity of living with type 2 diabetes and urinary incontinence in older adults who receive home-care services. Our recruitment experiences highlight some of the barriers we encountered but they also highlight the facilitators that ultimately led to the successful recruitment of our study samples.

One of the main challenges experienced in both studies was the difficulty in identifying potential study participants without the benefit of clinical databases commonly maintained in settings such as teaching hospitals. Overcoming this barrier necessitated using multi-pronged approaches such as combining community outreach with posters and health providers acting as direct access points to potential participants. Ironically the use of multi-pronged approaches presented new barriers, those of additional time and cost, findings echoed by Williams et al. (2017) who successfully implemented the door-to-door distribution of flyers, newspapers, and large-scale organizational engagement to meet recruitment goals but also with substantial additional cost and time requirements. However, our initial challenge in identifying where best to engage in recruitment also spoke to our need to familiarize ourselves with the dynamics of our populations and the factors that may impede their willingness to participate in research ( Stahl & Vasquez, 2004 ).

In situations when research involves populations who are hard to reach such as older adults, successful participant recruitment must also take care to abide by ethical principles such as being transparent, respectful, and using non-coercive recruitment strategies ( Gledhill et al., 2008 ). Research suggests that including older adults in the earliest stages of study development can help overcome issues such as participant identification and participation ( Newington & Metcalfe, 2014 ). Our readiness to build trust and learn about our populations of interest in addition to our willingness to accommodate the timing and location of study interviews was an integral aspect of achieving recruitment success ( Crawford Shearer et al., 2010 ).

There is widespread acknowledgment that successful recruitment in clinical research does not occur in isolation ( Newington & Metcalfe, 2014 ). As junior researchers, the need to involve partners in the recruitment process was paramount; in part due to constraints on our funding to support recruitment but also because we were in the preliminary stages of establishing research networks. Research suggests that active approaches (e.g., person-to-person engagement) to recruitment are more successful than passive approaches (e.g., poster or social media post), a finding our research corroborated ( Gul & Ali, 2009 ). As such, clinicians across a variety of health professions served as important entry points for connecting with potential study participants in both studies. This was especially important in study one where caregivers may not have been accessing services, but the person they were supporting was.

The frontline clinicians also served as connection points between the researchers and other recruitment locales such as day programs and specialized community services. Clinician workload is acknowledged in the literature as impacting their participation in the recruitment process and was documented by our experience, particularly in the context of study two ( Sullivan-Bolyai et al., 2007 ). However, many clinicians were enthusiastic about the research studies and sought to facilitate the recruitment process as they were able, a finding also corroborated by the literature ( Graffy et al., 2009 ). Importantly, findings from our research studies emphasize the value of engaging referral partners early in the recruitment process but also highlight the need to have multiple partners engaged in this process. Lack of partner engagement was frequently due to systemic factors and researchers should explore these potential confounders to recruitment as they develop their study methodology.

The use of multiple approaches to achieve our recruitment goals was both necessary and challenging in the context of our respective studies. Recruiting community-based populations requires a carefully considered approach that takes into account the behaviors and sociocultural norms of the population and is known to be taxing ( Williams et al., 2017 ). In our studies, as cited by Rockliffe et al. (2018) and Ellard-Gray et al. (2015) , community and individual engagement was more successful than using posters, advertisements, and remote engagement strategies. This may have been due to participants’ constraints on mobility but also likely influenced by the older adults’ vulnerability and their improved ability to develop trust when in situations of direct face-to-face contact ( McHenry et al., 2015 ).

At different stages of recruitment, we tailored our approach to meet recruitment goals by increasing the geographical reach and increasing attendance at community events, but this impacted expenses through increased time and travel costs. All participants received honorariums declared at the time of recruitment, but some participants felt this was unnecessary and undermined the pure intent of their participation. Using study incentives continues to be controversial but is increasingly common, calling attention to the need for clear guidelines and recommendations for researchers ( Head, 2009 ). These experiences also highlight the lack of available frameworks or conceptual maps that could be used to guide the recruitment process and help researchers plan cost-effective recruitment strategies ( Foster et al., 2011 ; Gilmore-Bykovskyi et al., 2019 ). Moreover, greater emphasis on publishing the details of recruiting strategies in the literature would aid study transparency and be a great asset for junior and early career researchers ( Buckwalter, 2009 ; Rockliffe et al., 2018 ).

Recruiting a diverse sample of participants who met the clinically relevant inclusion criteria presented a challenge for both studies. Although qualitative data collection methods offer multiple approaches for participation, they can still be exclusionary, for example, through the use of unilingual language ( Banas et al., 2019 ). The difficulties associated with obtaining a sample of participants that includes both racial and ethnic diversity are well-documented in the literature ( Gledhill et al., 2008 ). Issues of trust, language, and cultural barriers contribute to their underrepresentation in research, and present substantial challenges for recruitment ( Corbie-Smith et al., 2002 ; Levkoff & Sanchez, 2003 ). In the case of a trust, researchers may face recruitment challenges because the population of interest may have historically had experiences that have resulted in mistrust in relationships, for example, migrant workers who have precarious status and may fear deportation ( Fete et al., 2019 ). Or older adults and ethnic minorities who may be wary of research and institutions based on historical events such as abuse or provision of misinformation and therefore avoid consenting for study participation ( Corbie-Smith et al., 2002 ; Moreno-John et al., 2004 ).

Roots of mistrust can also be grounded in perceived power differences and vulnerabilities between study participants and researchers ( Banas et al., 2019 ). Members of 2SLGBTQI+ communities have often experienced extensive marginalization and discrimination over their life course both within and outside of health systems ( Boule et al., 2020 ; Fredriksen Goldsen et al., 2019 ). Therefore, as older adults, their perceptions and trust of the health professions may be impacted by their fears of increased vulnerability as a member of a non-gender-conforming group ( Pang et al., 2019 ). Increasing efforts must be made to increase the confidence and trust within these communities using strategies such as engaging them at the stages of research planning and development, engaging in 2SLGBTQI+ outreach, and staff education on cultural competency ( Wood et al., 2016 ).

The sample obtained in study one represented a range of socioeconomic backgrounds but lacked both racial and ethnic diversity. To overcome this obstacle, a geographically stratified recruitment approach provides one of the best opportunities for increasing the sample diversity ( Fete et al., 2019 ). This strategy was used in study two whereby recruitment was stratified by geography resulting in a sample, which was socioeconomically heterogeneous. However, there was not a concomitant increase in the racial or ethnic representation of the obtained study sample. Strategies such as facilitating data collection in other languages or using strategies such as photovoice for data collection could help increase participation from a variety of racial and ethnic groups ( Bonevski et al., 2014 ).

Historically, older adults are underrepresented in the research literature ( Herrera et al., 2010 ; Kuchel, 2019 ). These two studies help fill this well-known gap in the knowledge base, but our recruitment experiences also highlight the importance of addressing racial and ethnic identity in research with older adults. Moving forward, future recruitment strategies should ideally address the parameters of ethnicity, race, and socioeconomic a priori to realize recruitment goals and attain study samples that are represented across a range of factors. Failure to do so may impact the ability of a study to provide results that are relevant and adequately representative of the populations that were sampled ( Tarlow & Mahoney, 2000 ). However, overly specific eligibility criteria can also limit the ability to reach a suitable sample size so the cost and benefits should be carefully assessed prior to study commencement ( Yancey et al., 2006 ).

The importance of making connections and building relationships in the community was a facilitator to recruitment but challenging to achieve. The process highlighted the need to understand the context including the behavior and relational patterns of the target study population to plan recruitment ( Gilmore-Bykovskyi et al., 2019 ). Importantly, building relationships can take time and may depend upon the extent of pre-existing networks, which could be a limiting factor for early career researchers. Time and cost must be considered in the development of recruitment strategies to engage community-based samples of participants. For example, a systematic review of walking intervention studies conducted primarily in the United States (US), Australia, and the United Kingdom noted that the overall study schedule did not allow sufficient time to recruit participants, monitor the effectiveness of recruitment strategies, and alter plans if required ( Foster et al., 2011 ). Time is also needed to determine the most successful recruitment strategy for the population of interest. For example, a US intervention study for family caregivers of older adults with early stage dementia used multiple recruitment methods, including radio advertisements, phone contacts, and community seminars, yet small numbers of participants were successfully recruited from each strategy ( Szabo et al., 2018 ).

As demonstrated in the literature, there is potential for differential recruitment success depending on the population. For example, in study one, the investigator had great success in recruitment from meeting with community groups, but other researchers have described this method as the least successful ( Gledhill et al., 2008 ; Rockliffe et al., 2018 ; UyBico et al., 2007 ). This could be in part related to the delivery of the meetings as Gledhill et al. (2008) presented to groups as large as 90 and on average 40 or the lack of trust toward researchers among community leaders cited by Rockliffe et al. (2018) . In both studies, we met with much smaller groups, typically no more than 10 attendees. These smaller, more informal sessions likely ensured that potential participants felt a sense of connection and trust toward the researchers, a known contributor to recruitment success of vulnerable populations ( Yancey et al., 2006 ). This type of face-to-face approach was found to be very successful in recruiting racial and ethnic minority populations in the systematic review of recruitment strategies by Ibrahim and Sidani (2014) and is widely recognized as the best approach for recruiting older adults ( Gonzalez et al., 2007 ; Saunders et al., 2003 ).

Both studies achieved the greatest recruitment success through community engagement initiatives, but we acknowledge that the samples attained may reflect biases as those who were more involved in community programs may have been more likely to be recruited to the studies ( Meyer & Wilson, 2009 ). Obtaining community-based samples are inherently challenging and it is important to maximize the success of recruitment strategies that work well. However, researchers must also strive to provide clear and transparent accounts of their recruitment processes as an integral part of study reporting.

Professional networks previously established through clinical and academic activities were key facilitators to successful recruitment in both studies. We approached these clinical service agencies, individuals, or stakeholders prior to study recruitment, and they facilitated access to participants or informed us of potential recruitment contacts. Effectively, our professional standing among our peers included a strong element of trust which they extended to us in providing support for our research activities. The trust potential participants placed in these contacts were extended to us as researchers culminating in a successful recruitment strategy ( Crawford Shearer et al., 2010 ; Gilmore-Bykovskyi et al., 2019 ; Szabo et al., 2018 ). Our experience highlights the potential value of involving would-be participants and community partners in the earliest stages of research development akin to participatory research ( Bonevski et al., 2014 ; Schmittdiel et al., 2010 ). Furthermore, our experience also highlighted how valuable our professional networks were even if they initially appeared tangential from the primary goals of our studies. Our recruitment experience demonstrated that even junior researchers with limited budgets and resources can still achieve substantial recruitment reach if they are invested in exploring strategies for maximizing recruitment success.

Using our experiences in recruiting community-based samples, in conjunction with contributions from the literature, we developed a guide to inform and optimize opportunities for success when recruiting community-based samples. This guide can be used during study design and study implementation phases to assist researchers in considering factors that will impact recruitment success such as costs (honorariums, travel, payment for professional recruiters), time, and the importance of relationships and networks. In addition, we include a list of strategies that can assist researchers in successfully meeting their recruitment targets (e.g., clarifying rules around honorariums at the outset, tracking and regularly evaluating recruitment strategies, and engaging representative members of target populations in recruitment processes) ( Table 2 ).

Guide for optimizing recruitment success of community-based samples.

2SLGBTQI+: two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, inquiring; KEP: knowledge exchange partners.

Limitations

While this commentary provides perspective and recommendations on the recruitment of community-based samples, it is not without limitations. While the authors drew upon a strong body of recruitment research to inform the manuscript, the reflective component included only two experiences. Some of the identified strategies and recommendations to enhance recruitment may be context-specific and may require context-specific adaptation. Future research on the methodological aspects of recruitment is needed to better inform guidelines that can support the engagement of study samples that respect principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Our experience as early career researchers seeking to recruit representative samples of community-based older adults, caregivers, and associated health providers proved to be challenging. However, this experience provided a great opportunity for us to identify important steps and strategies to consider when planning and implementing the recruitment of community-based populations for research studies. Through our work, we have identified some key challenges and facilitators to recruitment. Challenges included: identifying potential participants, engaging referral partners, implementing multi-methods, and achieving study sample diversity. Facilitators included: making connections in the community, building relationships, and drawing on existing networks. Our findings, in conjunction with the literature, informed the development of a guide for optimizing recruitment success that may be useful for others conducting community-based research.

Author Biographies

Anna Garnett , RN, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing at Western University in London, Ontario.

Melissa Northwood is an Assistant Professor in the School of Nursing at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs: Anna Garnett https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7111-8602

Melissa Northwood https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5043-8068

Open access
Published: 25 October 2018

Improving trial recruitment processes: how qualitative methodologies can be used to address the top 10 research priorities identified within the PRioRiTy study

Marita Hennessy ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7742-8118 1 , 2 ,
Andrew Hunter 1 , 3 ,
Patricia Healy 3 , 4 ,
Sandra Galvin 3 , 4 &
Catherine Houghton 1 , 4

Trials volume 19 , Article number: 584 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

4348 Accesses

20 Citations

96 Altmetric

Metrics details

A Methodology to this article was published on 01 March 2018

How can we improve recruitment to trials? In their recently published paper, Healy et al. outline the top 10 prioritised questions for trial recruitment research identified by the PRioRiTy study. The challenge now is for researchers to answer these questions; but how best can these be answered? In this commentary, we illustrate how qualitative research can be utilised to generate in-depth insight into trial recruitment issues, either as a stand-alone methodology, or through a mixed-methods approach. Consideration is given to how different forms of qualitative research can be used to address these priorities and to help researchers set out an agenda to optimise its value.

Peer Review reports

In their recently published paper, Healy et al. outline the top 10 prioritised questions for trial recruitment research identified by the Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials (PRioRiTy) study (Table 1 ) [ 1 ]. The challenge now is for researchers to answer these questions. We believe that there are significant opportunities for qualitative methodologies to contribute to better understanding of trial recruitment issues and that the true value of such methodologies has not been fully recognised, or realised, to date. By working together, all key stakeholders—including trialists, researchers, clinicians, practitioners, commissioners, managers, policy makers, and members of the public—can find answers to the various recruitment issues by embedding qualitative designs in trials, or vice versa (i.e. embedding trials within qualitative designs) [ 2 ]. To this end, this paper will present a number of examples where qualitative research has been used to improve the conduct of trials, and specifically recruitment.

What is the value of qualitative methods in trial recruitment research?

Qualitative research can address questions in trial recruitment that are not easily addressed by quantitative methods, by providing in-depth information on the experiences of participants and recruiters. It can also help contribute to trial design, including the development of effective recruitment strategies. Qualitative research methods have been used to address various aspects of randomised trials; these include developing and understanding the acceptability of the intervention being trialled, the trial design, process and conduct (including recruitment and retention), explaining trial outcomes, and providing contextual understanding of the target condition for the trial [ 3 ]. Increasingly, more focus is being placed on the pre-trial stage [ 3 ]. Qualitative research can potentially improve the efficiency of trials by identifying problems with recruitment. This enables the trialists to address those problems and increase or optimise recruitment [ 3 ]. Common qualitative research methods include interviews, focus groups, and observations. Other methods include analysis of trial documents, and audio recordings of trial recruitment interactions. While the integration of qualitative methods within randomised trials is recognised as important, in practice, fully embedded/integrated designs are rarely realised and methodological concerns persist [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. It is imperative that researchers in primary qualitative research fully report and justify their methodological approach to ensure the rigor of their methods and maintain the credibility of qualitative research in trials. A range of potential weaknesses have been identified, including lack of clarity regarding methods, sample and data collection, limited explanation of context, poor description of data analysis, and failure to account for the impact, if any, of the qualitative researcher [ 6 , 7 ] There is also a need for those undertaking qualitative evidence synthesis to address the confidence in their findings using GRADE CERQual [ 8 ]. In addition, there are reporting guidelines on the EQUATOR network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ) specifically aimed at qualitative research and evidence synthesis.

How can questions be answered by qualitative methods?

We will now outline how different qualitative methodologies can be used to address the top 10 priorities. We have grouped the approaches into three categories: 1) interviews and focus groups; 2) observation, audio recording and documentary analysis; and (3) qualitative evidence synthesis. Each of the methods can also be used within mixed-methods approaches; however, we will not specifically address such approaches within this commentary. In mixed-methods research, the researcher collects and analyses both qualitative and quantitative data rigorously, integrates the two forms of data and their results, organizes these procedures into specific research designs, and frames these procedures within theory and philosophy ([ 9 ]: page 5).

Interviews and focus groups

The use of individual interviews or focus groups within randomised trials facilitates understanding from the viewpoint of those experiencing phenomena (in this instance, recruitment to trials), and can be conducted with patient participants, recruiters, health professionals, or others. Individual interviews provide the opportunity for in-depth discussion of individuals’ personal insights and lived experiences, particularly when the topic is potentially sensitive [ 10 , 11 ]. Alternatively, the strengths of focus groups lie in group dynamics and the interactive nature of the unfolding discussions. Focus groups allow discussion in a more relaxed atmosphere to explore shared experiences and develop understanding from their interaction [ 12 ].

Donovan et al. provide a detailed example of how interviews can provide a rich understanding of the complexities and hidden challenges underlying recruitment to randomised trials from the perspectives of recruiters [ 13 ]. Similarly, Oakley et al. provide an example of the use of focus groups to support process evaluation within a trial [ 14 ]. They argue that the science of a randomised trial is enhanced by ongoing high-quality evaluation which considers the context in which the intervention is delivered, helping to explain outcomes. Analysis of focus group data provides insight into acceptability and delivery of interventions from the perspective of participants [ 5 ]; interviews can also facilitate such insights. O’Cathain et al. identify the increasing use of focus groups and individual interviews within trials, suggesting that incorporating these methods at feasibility and pilot stages of trials can enhance the leaning about trials for trialists and researchers, and contribute to the overall trial endeavour [ 5 ].

Dormandy et al. conducted interviews with general practitioners to seek their views on effective ways of recruiting and retaining practices to clinical trials [ 15 ]. This study found that interviews with general practitioners allowed identification of key strategies for communication, data collection, and payment to support retention and recruitment.

Donovan et al. synthesised findings from interviews with recruiters in a number of trials, providing improved understanding of the complexity and fragile nature of recruitment practices [ 13 ]. Interviews elicited detailed information from recruiters regarding their tendency to undermine recruitment practices, specifically randomisation for clinical and equipoise reasons [ 13 ]. Importantly, these findings were elicited in individual interviews, with responses being fed into efforts to improve recruitment practices. In an earlier study, Donovan et al. conducted in-depth interviews with men in the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study to establish interpretation of study information by participants [ 2 ]. Subsequent changes to the content and delivery of study information within this trial, incorporating findings from these interviews amongst other data, increased recruitment rates from 40% to 70% [ 2 ]. The examples presented show that interviews and focus groups would be appropriate qualitative methods for most of the PRioRiTy questions, conscious of the group versus individual dynamic for some sensitive questions. Individual interviews would be more suitable for question nine (‘What are the best approaches to optimise the informed consent process when recruiting participants to randomised trials?’), however, where the process of informed consent would perhaps be better discussed individually.

Observation, audio recording, and documentary analysis

While the strengths of interviews and focus groups are to capture perspectives and experiences, there can sometimes be conflict between what people say happens and what actually happens. There are times when qualitative methods that capture interactions and events would be more suitable for answering questions about trial processes. These methods can include observations, audio recordings, and documentary analysis of trial processes. For example, Healy et al. conducted a mixed-methods process evaluation of the OptiBIRTH trial (a pan-European cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT)) [ 16 ]. An ethnographic study conducted by Maguire was embedded within this study to explore the implementation of the intervention in practice [ 17 ]. Qualitative observations and interviews uncovered the impact of the intervention on culture and rituals within the practice setting.

An example of the use of audio recording was presented by Donovan and colleagues [ 2 ]. Analysis of audiotape recordings of recruitment appointments in the ProtecT study revealed how the language used when presenting trial information could impact on recruitment [ 2 ]. This innovative qualitative approach became the cornerstone of QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) developed by Donovan and colleagues [ 18 ]. The QRI involves understanding the process of recruitment in real time and then developing an action plan to address the identified difficulties in collaboration with the RCT Chief Investigator, Trial Management Group, and Clinical Trials Unit [ 18 ].

Documentary analysis examines anything written or produced about a context and how it has evolved [ 19 ]. This can include formal and informal sources which may contain clues as to how a phenomenon has evolved [ 19 ]. This is an important method to understand what is happening and the context from which the phenomenon has grown. Documentary sources, unlike interviews, are not the result of a somewhat artificial process of interaction and, therefore, the process by which they are produced cannot be ignored [ 20 ]. Content analysis of trial documents was conducted in the Selective bladder Preservation Against Radical Excision (SPARE) feasibility study (along with analysis of interview data and audio recordings of recruitment appointments) to explore reasons for low recruitment and to attempt to improve recruitment rates [ 21 ]. Trial documents examined included the SPARE trial Patient Information Sheet and trial protocol. Findings contributed to revisions to trial processes that were acceptable to trialists and recruiters.

In recruitment research, these qualitative methods, alone or in combination (as utilized for example in the QRI), could be used to answer the “what is happening?” component of the PRioRiTy questions. For instance, using observation or audio recording, the best approaches for including under-represented or vulnerable populations (question seven) could be explored. Similarly, informed consent processes (question nine: ‘What are the best approaches to optimise the informed consent process when recruiting participants to randomised trials?’) could be examined using observations, audio recording, or documentary analysis. Researchers could also use observational techniques to explore the role of technology in recruitment processes outlined in question ten. In the context of the PRioRiTy questions, documents would be important for augmenting evidence from interviews and observations [ 22 ], to develop a better understanding about recruitment processes and outcomes.

Qualitative evidence synthesis

In addition to emphasising the importance of primary qualitative studies in trial research, there is now recognition of the contribution to be made by qualitative evidence synthesis (QES). QES is a valuable way of synthesising primary qualitative research to capture experiences, perceptions, and factors that impact on certain components of the trial process. QES is rigorous and provides meaningful conclusions that can inform policy and practice [ 23 , 24 ].

As outlined in the PRioRiTy paper, a number of qualitative syntheses have already been conducted that address questions six and nine [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. It should be noted that all of the questions identified in the PRioRiTy paper were deemed “unanswered” if there was no up-to-date systematic review (< 3 years old). Houghton et al. have also published a Cochrane Protocol exploring the factors that impact on recruitment to trials [ 29 ]. This ongoing qualitative review will be integrated with the findings of a Cochrane review [ 30 ] that aimed to identify interventions designed to improve recruitment to RCTs, which in turn will inform PRioRiTy questions two and six. QES has great potential for guiding further recommendations for most of the PRioRiTy questions.

Conclusions: where do we go from here?

The PRioRiTy study identified and prioritised important unanswered questions on how to improve the process of recruiting people to randomised trials. Further research is now required to address those prioritised questions. We propose that qualitative research approaches have a crucial role in providing answers to the questions posed. Similar to the examples provided, qualitative research could be conducted as a stand-alone study embedded as a study within a trial (SWAT), or as part of mixed-methods research. Failure to integrate findings and variations in quality are ongoing issues [ 31 ]. Trialists and qualitative researchers need to collaborate and work together to ensure qualitative work is done appropriately, ethically, and rigorously.

As described above, there is ample opportunity for qualitative methodologies to address the top ten priorities identified for trial recruitment research. Organisations such as QUESTS, the HRB-TMRN, Trial Forge, and QuinteT can bridge links between trialists and researchers to better inform trial recruitment.

Some key considerations for moving this agenda forward are:

Qualitative research needs to be integral, and not considered an optional add-on.

There needs to be a common language supporting communication between trialists and researchers.

Qualitative methodologies should be embedded at the design phase (including costings) and fully reported on completion. This includes pre-trial, pilot, and feasibility stages of the trial [ 3 , 4 ].

The potential positive impact of qualitative research in trial recruitment and other trial methodology research needs to be rigorously researched, articulated, and disseminated.

Qualitative research can help provide the necessary evidence to guide researchers on how to improve the process of how people are recruited to randomised trials; an issue which persists as a challenge to trialists.

Abbreviations

Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials

Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

QuinteT Recruitment Intervention

Qualitative Research in Trials Centre

Qualitative Research Integrated within Trials

Randomised Controlled Trial

Selective bladder Preservation Against Radical Excision

Study Within A Trial

Healy P, Galvin S, Williamson PR, Treweek S, Whiting C, Maeso B, et al. Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership—the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2018;19(1):147.

Article Google Scholar

Donovan J, Little P, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, et al. Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. BMJ. 2002;325(7367):766–70.

O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Drabble SJ, Rudolph A, Hewison J. What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open. 2013;3(6):e002889.

Plano Clark VL, Schumacher K, West C, Edrington J, Dunn LB, Harzstark A, et al. Practices for embedding an interpretive qualitative approach within a randomized clinical trial. J Mix Methods Res. 2013;7(3):219–42.

O’Cathain A, Goode J, Drabble SJ, Thomas KJ, Rudolph A, Hewison J. Getting added value from using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials: a qualitative interview study. Trials. 2014;15(1):215.

Houghton C, Casey D, Shaw D, Murphy K. Approaches to rigour in qualitative case study research. Nurse Researcher. 2012;20(4):12–7.

Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. Br Med J. 2009;339:b3496.

Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Rashidian A, Wainwright M, Noyes J. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci 2018;13(1), 2.

Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2018.

Google Scholar

Bazeley P. Qualitative data analysis: practical strategies. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2013.

Elam G, Fenton KA. Researching sensitive issues and ethnicity: lessons from sexual health. Ethn Health. 2003;8(1):15–27.

Greenbaum T. Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2000.

Book Google Scholar

Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2014;15(1):5.

Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ. 2006;332(7538):413–6.

Dormandy E, Kavalier F, Logan J, Harris H, Ishmael N, Marteau TM. Maximising recruitment and retention of general practices in clinical trials: a case study. Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58(556):759–66.

Healy P, Smith V, Savage G, Clarke M, Devane D, Gross MM, et al. Process evaluation for OptiBIRTH, a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention designed to increase rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section. Trials. 2018;19(1):9.

Maguire R. “Trying for a VBAC”: an ethnography of cultural change within a randomised trial aimed at increasing vaginal birth after caesarean section: the OptiBIRTH study. Dublin: University of Dublin, Trinity College; 2016.

Donovan JL, Rooshenas L, Jepson M, Elliott D, Wade J, Avery K, et al. Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Trials. 2016;17(1):283.

Simons H. Case study research in practice. London: Sage Publications; 2009.

Bechhofer F, Paterson L. Principles of research design in the social sciences. London: Routledge; 2000.

Paramasivan S, Huddart R, Hall E, Lewis R, Birtle A, Donovan JL. Key issues in recruitment to randomised controlled trials with very different interventions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment to the SPARE trial (CRUK/07/011). Trials. 2011;12:78.

Shah SK, Corley KG. Building better theory by bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. J Manage Stud. 2006;43(8):1821–35.

Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1_suppl):6–20.

Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):59.

Limkakeng A, Phadtare A, Shah J, Vaghasia M, Wei DY, Shah A, et al. Willingness to participate in clinical trials among patients of Chinese heritage: a meta-synthesis. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e51328.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Nalubega S, Evans C. Participant views and experiences of participating in HIV research in sub-Saharan Africa: a qualitative systematic review. JBI Database of System Rev Implement Rep. 2015;13(5):330–420.

Wilman E, Megone C, Oliver S, Duley L, Gyte G, Wright JM. The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the empirical research. Trials. 2015;16(1):502.

Eltorki M, Uleryk E, Freedman SB, Adams J. Waiver of informed consent in pediatric resuscitation research: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med. 2013;20(8):822–34.

Houghton C, Dowling M, Meskell P, Hunter A, Gardner H, Conway A, Treweek S, Sutcliffe K, Noyes J, Devane D, Nicholas JR, Biesty LM. Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2017, Issue 5. Art. No.: MR000045.

Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, Cook JA, Kjeldstrøm M, Johansen M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3(2):e002360.

Cooper C, O'Cathain A, Hind D, Adamson J, Lawton J, Baird W. Conducting qualitative research within clinical trials units: avoiding potential pitfalls. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;38(2):338–43.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Marita Hennessy is a PhD Scholar funded by the Health Research Board under SPHeRE/2013/1.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Qualitative Research in Trials Centre (QUESTS), School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

Marita Hennessy, Andrew Hunter & Catherine Houghton

Health Behaviour Change Research Group, School of Psychology, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

Marita Hennessy

School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

Andrew Hunter, Patricia Healy & Sandra Galvin

Health Research Board—Trials Methodology Research Network, Galway, Ireland

Patricia Healy, Sandra Galvin & Catherine Houghton

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MH conceived the commentary. MH, AH, and CH wrote the initial draft. All authors (MH, AH, PH, SG, and CH) provided significant intellectual contribution towards reviewing and editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marita Hennessy .

Ethics declarations

Authors’ information.

PH and SG are on behalf of the PRioRiTy study team, listed at https://priorityresearch.ie/ .

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hennessy, M., Hunter, A., Healy, P. et al. Improving trial recruitment processes: how qualitative methodologies can be used to address the top 10 research priorities identified within the PRioRiTy study. Trials 19 , 584 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2964-1

Download citation

Received : 23 May 2018

Accepted : 04 October 2018

Published : 25 October 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2964-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Documentary analysis
Focus groups
Mixed-methods
Observation
Qualitative
Randomised trials
Trial methodology
Trial recruitment

ISSN: 1745-6215

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: [email protected]

Recruitment for qualitative research

Daniel Turner

You’ll find a lot of information and debate about sampling issues in qualitative research: discussions over ‘random’ or ‘purposeful’ sampling, the merits and pitfalls of ubiquitous ‘snowball’ sampling, and unending questions about sample size and saturation. I’m actually going to address most of these in the next blog post, but wanted to paradoxically start by looking at recruitment. What’s the difference, and why think about recruitment strategies before sampling?

Well, I’d argue that the two have to be considered together, but recruitment tends to be a bit of an afterthought and is so rarely detailed in journal articles ( Arcury and Quandt 1999 ) I feel it merits its own post. In fact, there is a great ONS document about sampling , but it only has one sentence on advice for respondent recruitment: “The method of respondent recruitment and its effectiveness is also an important part of the sampling strategy”. Indeed!

When we talk about recruitment, we are considering the way we actually go out and ask people to take part in a research study. The sample frame is how we choose what groups of people and how many to approach, but there are huge practical problems in implementing our chosen sampling method that can be dealt with by writing a comprehensive recruitment strategy.

This might sound a bit dull, but it’s actually kind of fun – and the creation of such a strategy for your qualitative research project is a really good thought exercise, helping you plan and later acknowledge shortcomings in what actually happened. Essentially, think of this process as how you will market and advertise your research project to potential participants.

Sometimes there is a shifting dynamic between sampling and recruitment. Say we are doing random sampling from numbers in a phone book, a classic ‘random’ technique. The sampling process is the selection of x number of phone numbers to call. The recruitment is the actually calling and asking someone to take part in the research. Now, obviously not everyone is going to answer the phone, or want to answer any questions. So you then have a list of recruited people, which you might actually want to sample from again to make a representative sample. If you found out everyone that answered the phone was retired and over 60, but you wanted a wider age profile, you will need to refactor from your recruited sample.

But let’s think about this again. Why could it be that everyone who consented to take part in our study was retired? Well, we used numbers from the phone book, and called during the day. What effect might this have? Numbers in the phone book tend to be people who have been resident in one place for a long time, many students and young people just have mobiles, and if we call during the day, we will not get answers from most people who work. This illustrates the importance of carefully considering the recruitment strategy: although we chose a good random sampling technique, our strategy of making phone calls during the day has already scuppered our plans.

How about another example: recruitment through a poster advertising the study. Many qualitative studies aren’t looking for very large number of respondents, but are targeting a very specific sample. In this example, maybe it’s people who have visited their doctor in the last 6 months. Sounds like a poster in the waiting room of the local GP surgery would work well. What are the obvious limitations here?

simple qualitative analysis software from quirkos

First of all, people who see the poster will probably have visited the GP (since they are in that location), however, it actually only would recruit people who are currently receiving treatment. People who had been in the previous 6 months but didn’t need to go back again, or had such a horrible experience they never returned, will not see our poster and don’t have a chance to be recruited. Both of these will skew the sample of respondents in different ways.

In some ways this is inevitable. Whichever sampling technique and recruitment strategy we adopt, some people will not hear about the study or want to take part. However, it is important to be conscious of not just who is being sampled, but who is left out, and the likely effect this has on our sample and consequently our findings. For example our approach here probably means we oversample people who have chronic conditions requiring frequent treatment, and undersample people who hate their doctor. It’s not necessarily a disaster, but just like making a reflexivity statement about our own biases, we must be forthright about the sampling limitations and consider them when analysing and writing conclusions.

For these reasons, it’s often desirable to have multiple and complementary recruitment strategies, so that one makes up for deficiencies in the other. So a poster in the waiting room is great, but maybe we can get a list of everyone registered at the surgery, so we can also contact people not currently seeking treatment. This would be wonderful, but in the real world, we might hit problems with the surgery not being interested in the study, not able to release that information for confidentiality reasons, and the huge extra time such a process would require.

That’s why I see a recruitment strategy as a practical battle plan that tries to consider the limitations and realities of engaging with the real world. You can also start considering seemingly small things that can have a huge impact on successful recruitment:

• The design of the poster • The wording of invitation letters • The time of day you make contact (not just by phone, but don’t e-mail first thing on a Monday morning!) • Any incentives, and how appropriate they are • Data protection issues • Winning the support of ‘gatekeepers’ who control access to your sample • Timescales • Cost (especially if you are printing hundreds of letters of flyers) • Time and effort required to find each respondent • And many more…

For a more detailed discussion, there’s a great article by Newington and Metcalfe (2014) specifically on influencing factors for recruitment in qualitative research.

Finally, I want to reiterate the importance of trying to record who has not been recruited and why. If you are directly contacting a few dozen respondents by phone or e-mail, this is easy to keep track of: you know exactly who has declined or not responded, likely reasons why and probably some demographic details.

However, think about the poster example. Here, we will be lucky if 1% of people that come through the surgery contact us to take part in the study. Think through these classic marketing stages: they have to see the poster, think it’s relevant to them, want to engage, and then reach out to contact you. There will be huge losses at each of those stages, and you don’t know who these people are or why they didn’t take part. This makes it very difficult in this kind of study to know the bias of your final sample: we can guess (busy people, those who aren’t interested in research) but we don’t know for sure.

Response rates vary greatly by method: by post 25% is really good, direct contact much higher, posters and flyers below 10%. However, you can improve these rates with careful planning, by considering carefully who will engage and why, and making it a good prospect to take part: describe the aims of the research, compensate time, and explain the proposed benefits. But you also need to take an ethical approach, don’t coerce, and make promises you can’t keep. Check out the recruitment guidelines drawn up by the Association for Qualitative Research.

My personal experience tells me that most people who engage with qualitative research are lovely! They want to help if they can, and love an opportunity to talk about themselves and have their voice heard. Just be aware of what kinds of people end up being your respondents, and make sure you acknowledge the possibility of hidden voices from people who don’t engage for their own reasons.

Once you get to your analysis, don't forget to try Quirkos for free , and see how our easy-to-use software can make a real qualitative difference to your research project! To keep up to date with new blog articles on this, and other qualitative research topics, follow our Twitter feed: twitter.com/quirkossoftware .

Sign up for more like this.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

Published on June 19, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research , which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis.

Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.

How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
What factors influence employee retention in a large organization?
How is anxiety experienced around the world?
How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?

Approaches to qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data analysis, advantages of qualitative research, disadvantages of qualitative research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative research.

Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.

Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography , action research , phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasize different aims and perspectives.

Note that qualitative research is at risk for certain research biases including the Hawthorne effect , observer bias , recall bias , and social desirability bias . While not always totally avoidable, awareness of potential biases as you collect and analyze your data can prevent them from impacting your work too much.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

Academic style
Vague sentences
Style consistency

See an example

Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods . These are some of the most common qualitative methods:

Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
Interviews: personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
Surveys : distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.
You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.

Qualitative researchers often consider themselves “instruments” in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.

For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analyzing the data.

Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.

Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:

Prepare and organize your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorize your data.
Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.

There are several specific approaches to analyzing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasize different concepts.

Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:

Flexibility

The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.

Natural settings

Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.

Meaningful insights

Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.

Generation of new ideas

Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analyzing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:

Unreliability

The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.

Subjectivity

Due to the researcher’s primary role in analyzing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated . The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.

Limited generalizability

Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalizable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population .

Labor-intensive

Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Chi square goodness of fit test
Degrees of freedom
Null hypothesis
Discourse analysis
Control groups
Mixed methods research
Non-probability sampling
Quantitative research
Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

Rosenthal effect
Implicit bias
Cognitive bias
Selection bias
Negativity bias
Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

Prepare and organize your data.
Review and explore your data.
Develop a data coding system.
Assign codes to the data.
Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 13, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Research article
Open access
Published: 23 January 2014

Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams

Lisa Newington 1 &
Alison Metcalfe 2

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume 14 , Article number: 10 ( 2014 ) Cite this article

59k Accesses

129 Citations

21 Altmetric

Metrics details

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.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 individuals from three clinical research teams based in London. Sampling was a combination of convenience and purposive. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework method to identify key themes.

Four themes were identified as influential to recruitment: infrastructure, nature of the research, recruiter characteristics and participant characteristics. The main reason individuals participate in clinical research was believed to be altruism, while logistical issues were considered important for those who declined. Suggestions to improve recruitment included reducing participant burden, providing support for individuals who do not speak English, and forming collaborations with primary care to improve the identification of, and access to, potentially eligible participants.

Conclusions

Recruiting the target number of research participants was perceived as difficult, especially for clinical trials. New and diverse strategies to ensure that all potentially eligible patients are invited to participate may be beneficial and require further exploration in different settings. Establishing integrated clinical and academic teams with shared responsibilities for recruitment may also facilitate this process. Language barriers and long journey times were considered negative influences to recruitment; although more prominent, these issues are not unique to London and are likely to be important influences in other locations.

Peer Review reports

Participant recruitment is vital to the success of a research study, and yet many research projects fail to recruit a sufficient number of participants [ 1 ]. Increasing participation in clinical research has become a key area of focus within the NHS, with the aim of facilitating evidence-based policy, improving health outcomes and reducing health inequality [ 2 ]. The identification of optimal recruitment methods is gaining interest and a recent systematic review of strategies aimed at improving recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified 45 relevant studies and categorised six types of intervention: trial design, obtaining consent, approach to participants, financial incentives, training for recruiters and trial coordination [ 3 ]. Overall, the general strategies found to be effective in improving recruitment included: making telephone reminders to non-responders, having opt-out procedures where potential participants are required to contact the trial team if they do not want to be contacted about a trial, and having open rather than blinded trial designs [ 3 ]. It is not known whether more trialists are now adopting these strategies, or if they are proving successful in other settings or for other research methodologies.

Attempts to optimise recruitment and retention for non-interventional research studies include a range of techniques, such as using large sampling frames, sending reminders, running wide-scale publicity campaigns, providing free helplines and providing material in the respondents’ own languages [ 4 ]. While there may be universal elements to improving clinical research recruitment, reports of successful recruitment strategies for non-intervention studies are often directed at the particular target demographic group, for example: African American Elders [ 5 ], palliative care patients and their carers [ 6 ], adolescent mothers [ 7 ] and individuals from minority groups [ 8 ]. It is clear that recruitment and retention strategies need to be relevant to the target population and the research methodology used, and therefore the optimum strategy is likely to vary. However, further investigation of research recruitment according to different study designs is required to enable an evidence-based approach to recruitment.

The views of the researchers and clinicians involved in participant recruitment are beginning to be explored. We recently conducted a systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis to investigate this subject and found that the recruitment process could be defined by five key themes: building a research community, securing resources, the nature of the research, professional identities, and recruitment strategies [ 9 ]. Across all five themes there were reports of competition and compromise. Competition arose over funding, staffing and participants, and between clinical and research responsibilities; whilst compromise was needed to create study designs that were acceptable to patients, clinicians and researchers. Overall the views of researchers and clinicians were similar, which was partly explained by the overlapping elements of their roles.

The factors and situations that prompt some individuals to agree to participate in clinical research when others decline have also received attention, with the hope of informing new recruitment practices. However, to date, this work has been predominantly directed at a single medical condition and there have been varied findings [ 10 – 14 ].

Geographical location has been shown to influence recruitment rates to RCTs, with large cities such as London associated with poorer recruitment [ 15 , 16 ]. Possible suggestions for lower recruitment rates in London are the more varied ethnic population (individuals who are traditionally more difficult to engage in medical research), higher population mobility (individuals potentially missing invitations or reminders to participate), and more university hospitals (creating research fatigue as individuals are repeatedly approached to participate in research) [ 15 ]. Research teams in London therefore not only have to contend with the recruitment issues faced elsewhere, but may face an additional set of issues associated with their location.

The aim of the current study was to identify and understand the factors affecting recruitment to clinically focused research in London, UK, with the aim of mapping the existing strategies and informing new approaches. This study adds to existing work by exploring pertinent themes that arose across different clinical areas, study designs and researcher roles, providing a broad view of the factors that researchers consider important for the recruitment of clinical research participants. The following questions were explored:

What do researchers perceive to be the influential factors in recruiting participants to their clinically focused research?

What steps do research teams take to optimise recruitment to their studies?

What are researchers’ perceptions of why potential participants consent or decline to participate in their research?

Does being located in London create any additional issues with recruitment?

A convenience sample of three research leads involved in clinically focused research and based in teaching hospitals in South London were identified and invited to participate in a one-off interview to discuss their experiences and perceptions of recruiting participants for their studies. The phrase clinically focused research was defined as any medical research requiring an individual’s consent to participate, including donation of tissue samples, observational studies and RCTs, and the discussion was limited to recruiting adult patients able to give informed consent. The interviews were semi-structured and used non-directive, open-ended questions based on topics identified from preliminary discussions with clinical researchers and from the existing literature; the topic guide is listed in Table 1 . Each participant was asked to identify other members of their team with differing roles and responsibilities, and a purposive sample of these individuals was also invited to participate in the study. The same topic guide was used throughout and additional individuals were identified as necessary to ensure a broad mix of research professions were included, and to enable interviewing to continue until saturation was reached. All interviews were conducted face-to-face by the primary author in early 2013 at locations chosen by the participants. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.

The interview data was analysed using the framework method established by Ritchie and Spencer [ 17 ]. The framework matrix was developed using NVivo 10 software (QSR) and incorporated the interview topic guide, ideas from the existing literature and prominent themes identified from a preliminary review of the transcripts. The transcripts were coded line by line and additional themes were entered into the matrix where necessary. The matrix was populated with summarised data according to participant and theme, and used to identify common and divergent issues in answer to the study research questions.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the King’s College London, College Research Ethics Committee (Reference PNM/12/13-106). All participants gave informed consent to be interviewed. All but one participant also consented to anonymous quotes from their interviews being used in the resulting reports and publications.

A total of 15 individuals were invited to participate in the study, of which 11 agreed to be interviewed. Participant demographics are shown in Table 2 . One speciality registrar declined to be interviewed, citing that his role was predominantly clinical not research-based, and three speciality registrars did not reply to their invitations. The mean interview duration was 28 minutes, ranging from 19 to 48 minutes.

Interviewees were involved in a range of studies, all outpatient-based and run as part of three research teams (A, B and C) in three tertiary care hospital sites in South London. Study designs included a first-in-man drug trial, longitudinal observational studies, laboratory studies requiring one-off anonymous tissue samples, genetics studies, trials of therapy interventions, and physiological studies. All research teams carried out research with patients and healthy volunteers, and most interviewees had volunteered themselves as study participants at some stage. With the exception of the two clinical research scientists and the clinical research associate, all participants were also involved in clinical activities as part of their role. When asked why they became involved in clinical research, all participants reported having an interest in research at an earlier point in their career and acting upon this for a variety of reasons including: an extension of a previous role, the desire for more control over their work, part of their current training, to learn more about evidence-based medicine, to do something worthwhile, to improve job satisfaction and to ensure more sociable working hours. All interviewees were educated to degree level, four had gained a PhD and two were working towards a PhD or MD. All participants acknowledged difficultly in recruiting research participants and mentioned particular strategies or modifications that were made to improve recruitment within their teams. The general perception of recruitment was that it is hard to recruit the desired numbers in the allocated time and that more often than not, extensions to the recruitment period are required.

Influential factors in the recruitment of participants

Numerous factors were identified by the interviewees as influential in the recruitment of research participants and these were categorised into four main themes: infrastructure, nature of the research, recruiter characteristics and participant characteristics.

Infrastructure

The need for access to potentially eligible participants was emphasised throughout. Collaboration between hospital clinicians, GPs and researchers were viewed as essential for the identification of eligible patients and to avoid clinician gatekeeping. All research teams had established systems to facilitate the identification of patients, but there was awareness that potentially eligible patients seen in other departments or hospitals were frequently inaccessible.

“There will be a lot of patients going to [smaller hospitals], who could be enrolled in studies, but they’re not available there. They are available here. If they knew that we were doing it, and there was a mechanism for moving those patients for the duration of the trial here, I would think everyone would be happy. But there isn’t” . (Consultant, team A)

One team had developed a strategy where local hospitals were encouraged to identify eligible patients and refer them to the participating site for the duration of the trial. Whilst this was seen as a positive step, it was also acknowledged that greater recognition for the referring sites, in terms of funding and co-authorship, would be required to improve uptake.

The preparatory work carried out by research teams was considered highly influential in the success of recruitment. Screening patient records, identifying eligible patients, preparing appropriate recruitment material and ensuring that the relevant clinicians and researchers were fully informed about the study, were all recommended. These tasks were primarily the responsibility of the research nurses and research associates.

“Here, we do look through the clinic list and, myself on the busiest days, will look at the past three clinic letters and see if they’re going to be suitable, or if they’re already on the study. We do recommend that’s the best way to find patients. And then we’d print the relevant paperwork and put that in the notes, so the doctors can see. So then they don’t even have to think about it, it’s just there. I think that works best. I would say that maybe about half of places do that, because they haven’t got time. They haven’t got time to do the prep” . (Clinical research associate, team A)

One suggestion to improve access to patients was the use of opt-out systems. This was mentioned with reference to patients being required to opt out of research teams contacting them about relevant research projects, but was also discussed with regard to opting in to the routine donation of anonymous tissue samples (surplus to requirements for clinical tests) for clinically focused research. Neither system was currently in place.

Issue with the regulations surrounding ethical approval and the content of participant information sheets were commonly discussed. The interviewees thought that the approval process was too slow, which created delays in starting recruitment and raised concerns that their departments would get overlooked for involvement in multi-centre studies in favour of sites with faster turnaround times.

“We certainly need to improve the speed with which we’re able to take a study from application through to actually being run. We are unbelievable slow. Unbelievable top heavy with regulation… It often means, locally, that we get bypassed in these programmes” . (Consultant, team A)

The interviewees were also concerned that the information required by ethics committees led to the participant information sheets becoming excessively long and detailed, and off-putting to patients. The researchers were aware of the conflict between ensuring patients had sufficient information about a study to make an informed decision about participation, and providing accessible study literature, however many interviewees believed that with the current format, patients did not actually read the information sheets provided, instead relying on verbal discussions to make a decision about participation.

“I get a few who will [read the patient information sheets], but nobody does. I would say 98% of people don’t read it. I do a summary of what is important to them” . (Specialty registrar, team C)

Several researchers suggested inviting patients and members of the public to sit on ethics committees to provide feedback on this issue and one research team had implemented a strategy to use more images and pictures in their participant information sheets to improve readability.

Increasing public awareness of clinically focused research was widely thought to have the potential to improve research recruitment, with the exception of one interviewee who felt that people would only be interested in research when their health was affected. Whilst there were many comments on the need to increase awareness of research within hospitals and other healthcare facilities, interviewees had few suggestions of how this could be improved. There was frustration at the lack of media coverage or celebrity endorsement within their clinical areas, compared to the numerous high-profile campaigns for areas such as cancer research. However, the media was viewed as having both positive and negative effects on recruitment, depending on the nature of the coverage.

Nature of the research

The influence of the type of research on participant recruitment was discussed by all interviewees. It was noted that clinical trials were harder to recruit for than observational studies because they require greater commitment from the participants in terms of time and risk. The interviewees also acknowledged the difficulty between designing studies that were appealing to potential participants and ensuring they were scientifically robust.

“We wanted it to be a good trial from the beginning. So it wasn’t just ‘everybody gets [the intervention] and let’s see what happens’. Although that would have been much easier and might have given us the answer quicker. So it’s placebo controlled, randomised, double blind. Not only are we asking these people to possibly risk their lives, but they might not get it anyway” . (Clinical research scientist, team B)

Some studies incorporated open label or crossover phases after the initial RCT, which was believed to make the study more acceptable to patients. Other recommendations, such as allowing patients to have their study blood tests carried out in the community and offering evening and weekend research appointments, were suggested to reduce the time burden of research participation, but these strategies had not been adopted.

“I guess the big thing would be to try and reduce the burden of commitment to patients, as much as possible. If there was any chance that they could have research bloods taken with GPs, or in their local community, or research nurses could go and take the blood in their home, to avoid this” . (Research nurse, team A)

Payment for research participation was also discussed. Research leads highlighted the ethical issues associated with paying patients for research participation, whilst others acknowledged the role of payment as a driver in recruiting people to participate in their work. The semantics of this issue were important, with one interviewee stating that while it was unethical to pay patients to participate in research, there was the need to explore “being able to financially help volunteers better” . (Consultant, team A).

Recruiter characteristics

It was widely reported that patients were more likely to agree to participate research if they were asked by a medical doctor, specifically their usual doctor. Even for observational studies, which do not require a doctor to take consent, it was noted that recruitment was more successful if the doctor mentioned the study to the patient before the research nurse provided a more detailed explanation. In this respect, successful recruitment was seen as a team effort.

“Our clinicians are so pro-research they are very good at introducing it into the clinical consultation, which really helps, because if it’s first mentioned, I think, by a clinician it’s considered just a normal part of the clinical care, then I think people are sometimes a bit more accepting of it” . (Research nurse, team A)

In addition to the recruiters’ professional roles, their personality and knowledge of the research project were also considered influential. Although all interviewees had undergone the relevant research and ethics training, none had received specific training in recruitment. There was debate on whether it was possible to teach the art of recruitment and if so whether this would be useful. The more experienced researchers felt that specific training was unnecessary as recruitment style and strategy vary depending on the clinical speciality and the particular study involved, and on-the-job experience was believed to be more important that generic recruitment training. It was also suggested that an individual’s personality was central to their recruitment success, an aspect that is difficult to teach.

“ The art of getting people in; it’s not clear. If I couldn’t recruit to trials, I wouldn’t be doing trials… some of my colleagues are good at recruiting, some aren’t quite so good. Trying to tell someone what to do is just not helpful, is it? ” (Consultant, team B)

“Then it’s also your personality. I think patients, they need to trust you. If you are a little bit unsure about something – not about the protocol itself, because that changes and you can’t expect to know a thousand pages of protocol – but that you are confident. Holding their hands all they way during the study” . (Research nurse, team B)

The less experienced researchers believed they would have benefited from additional support during the early stages to learn how to optimise their recruitment success, but acknowledged that a general training programme was unlikely to be appropriate for all recruitment situations.

Interviewer: “Did anyone talk to you about recruiting?”

Respondent: “No, but it would have been helpful… No-one spoke to me and gave me any advice… Although studies are so different and patient groups are so different, that it’s probably slightly different for everyone” . (Specialty registrar, team A)

The clinical research scientists expressed frustration at being reliant on clinicians to recruit patients for their research, especially as they had completed the prerequisite training and had recruited patients previously; however current regulations prohibit non-clinicians from recruiting patients.

“I don’t know why they don’t think [scientists] can consent people here. We used to be able to. It’s only the last few years that we’ve not been able to. We’ve done all the consent courses and everything” . (Clinical research scientist, team B)

Participant characteristics

All interviewees thought that certain patients were more likely to agree to participate in clinically focused research than others. The reported reasons for this are explored in more detail in the section “Why do some individuals consent to participate and others decline?”, however it is important to highlight that for a potential participant to either consent or decline to participate in research, they must first be invited. This links to the previous issues of identifying and accessing eligible patients, but also relates to situations where potentially eligible patients may be denied the opportunity to take part. For example, several interviewees mentioned that individuals who do not speak or understand English are unable to participate in the majority of studies due to the absence of funding for interpreter and translation services.

“…that’s actually something we really need to think of as a team going forward with recruitment, because at the moment we’ve said, for example, if patients come with interpreters or they have no English, then we haven’t included them” . (Research nurse, team A)

One interviewee recalled using interpretation services in the past, but only as a last resort due to the additional workload created.

“It did happen in the past, that for some protocol it had been waived that you can have an interpreter, which can’t be a relative. Because it needs to be an independent interpreter. It needs to be really last chance, because it’s a lot of work, extra, on top of what you have to do” . (Research nurse, team B)

Where potential participants did speak sufficient English to be eligible for participation, but it was not their first language, some interviewees reported lower recruitment rates compared with native English speakers. Suggested reasons for this included communication issues or a general increased reluctance to participate in clinical research.

“Potentially there have been times in the past where I’ve felt that this person’s not really taking in what I’m saying, for various reasons, whether that’s to do with language differences, English not as a first language” . (Research nurse, team A)

Steps taken to optimise recruitment

Table 3 shows the recruitment strategies and specific techniques employed by the research teams and the interviewees’ suggestions of techniques to further improve recruitment. The recruitment strategies were divided into three main themes: preparation and planning, engendering patient support, and collaboration with clinicians. The majority of suggestions to improve recruitment were targeted at making research participation more appealing and less time consuming for patients.

Why do some individuals consent to participate and others decline?

The interviewees believed that the main reason why patients agreed to participate in their research was altruism, including the desire to help future patients and the wish to give something back to the hospital and team that cared for them. For the latter, researchers were clear to point out their duty to ensure that research participation was truly voluntary, rather than an obligation.

“A common thing tends to be ‘you’ve done so much for me, I’m quite happy to do anything for you’. Which is a sort of double edged sword actually, because that’s very generous of them, but actually you want them to participate because they want to, and you have to say ‘well you don’t have to’, and you’ve got to think that they’ve actually understood” . (Research nurse, team A)

There was also a general consensus that many individuals who took part in clinically focused research valued the potential benefits of participation, namely the opportunity to access additional health checks, novel treatments, increased contact with clinicians and the clearly defined plan of care. For researchers who provided payment for participation in their studies, financial gain was also viewed as an important motivator.

“Some of the studies that we run here, we pay £50 a visit. So it’s also to do with people need a bit of extra cash at the moment” . (Research nurse, team C)

Furthermore, patients who were interested in the research question and believed that clinical research was worthwhile were considered more likely to accept the invitation to participate. As discussed previously, the nature of the research was also viewed as highly influential, with patients preferring to participate in non-interventional studies.

“I think it’s much easier to recruit for an observational study. Because we’re not doing anything that could harm them” . (Specialty registrar, team A)

No particular strategies were employed to recruit patients of different ethnicities or socio-demographic backgrounds, with the common belief that recruiters attempt to invite all eligible patients to participate, regardless of their background. Despite the fact that recruitment was limited to English language speakers, most researchers felt that they recruited a good spread of the local population, although this did depend on the clinical area under investigation and the time commitment involved.

“I suppose retired patients have probably said ‘yes’ more willingly. For our study, we are requiring them to have extra tests. Some of the patients have said they are worried about time. Or getting here from work earlier” . (Specialty registrar, team A)

For patients who declined to participate in clinical research, the predominant reasons were thought to be practical. Patients who were working were unable to take extra time off work for research appointments and the additional travel required to attend the hospital was also believed to be off-putting, especially for patients who did not live locally.

“I think for some, mainly it’s time I’d say. Because often they’ve been sat in the waiting room for up to an hour already. So when it gets to the point where they’ve had their appointment, they’ve been seen by a nurse… they’re just like ‘I’ve just not got time’. I think that’s the main issue” . (Clinical research associate, team A)

Fear was also considered important, mainly with respect to clinical trials. Fear of taking new drugs, fear of additional diagnoses being discovered from extra screening, fear of needles, fear of symptoms worsening and fear of the storage of tissue or genetic information were all suggested. Language was also thought to play a role. As discussed in the section “Participant characteristics”, some interviewees observed that individuals who spoke English as an additional language were more reluctant to participate compared with native English speakers.

“I have noticed sometimes, I’ve not quantified this yet, because we haven’t analysed out results, but people who maybe don’t have English as a first language are probably a bit more reluctant” . (Speciality registrar, team A)

Specific issues for London

When asked specifically about recruitment issues associated with their location in London, the researchers’ responses fell into two main themes: local research community and patient population.

Local research community

The interviewees described successful research communities within their own teams, although there was a lack of collaboration with local primary care services. It was suggested that establishing shared research databases and other systems to identify and access potentially eligible patients across different service providers would be beneficial for study recruitment, but that specific initiatives would be needed to facilitate this.

“It’s hard because, in my view, if you really want to do it, it will cost money. It will involve someone, a GP with a research interest in the catchment area. For example, they call it GPSI, which is a GP with a specialist interest in something, rheumatology or haematology et cetera, but one would have research, just purely doing research” . (Specialty registrar, team C)

In addition, researchers reported delays in the process of gaining ethical approval for their studies and a lack of financial support for in-house academic research, suggesting that local improvements could be made to these systems.

Despite these recommendations for improvement, the interviewees were generally positive about working in London and the level of research support provided.

“I think in terms of being in a big London teaching hospital, we are more geared up to research, just from personal experience having worked in district generals in [UK county], there was no set up for research and it was very much a minor thing, and if anyone was doing something, they didn’t have research nurses, it was very much clinician led. It was set up in their own interests really, their own studies. So the fact that we have a forum for research nurses here, and we are trying to actively put out the research message” . (Research nurse, team A)

Patient population

It was noted by the researchers that patients attending hospital appointments in London frequently report long travel times and this was believed to be detrimental to recruitment. This was attributed to the broad catchment area for tertiary healthcare, plus the large number of people who commute into London for work. Interviewees reported difficultly recruiting patients with long journey times, especially if research participation involved additional visits.

“There’s quite a large population of people that travel in. I guess that will affect people taking part in research. Because if they’re having to travel from Hertfordshire, that’s going to put people off, because yes, you can give them their travel expenses, but you can’t give them their three hours back” . (Research nurse, team C)

Being a tertiary care centre was also thought to have a positive effect on recruitment, with researchers commenting that patients may be more likely to trust an invitation for research participation from a specialist centre.

“So people do come in from other hospitals. Again, you have a wider group. Also, they tend to be, in a way, more sick. More likely to listen to the medic who’s telling them, ‘this isn’t a bad thing’” . (Clinical research scientist, team C)

The interviewees also discussed the diversity of the local population, and as mentioned previously, the lack of interpretation and translation services for research resulting in potentially eligible patients being excluded. However, in general it was felt that the researchers were able to recruit representative samples of their local populations.

Although all these issues were important to researchers, it was also acknowledged that most locations have problems with recruitment and that having sufficient resources and research staff should perhaps be considered more important than the location.

“I wouldn’t say there are any huge differences that I can think of. I think it really does depend on the staff and the resources that they’ve got, rather than the actual hospital and the patients coming in” . (Clinical research associate, team A)

The primary aim of this study was to identify the factors that researchers perceive as influential in the recruitment of participants to their clinically focused research. Infrastructure, the nature of the research, recruiter characteristics and participant characteristics were all deemed important. The first three themes are, in theory, more amenable to modification than the last, for example through the development of systems to improve identification and access to eligible participants [ 18 ], designing studies with reduced participant burden [ 10 ] and ensuring that recruiters have the appropriate knowledge and skills [ 19 ]. The discussion of participant characteristics focused on the concept that certain patients were thought more likely to agree to research participation than others. The danger with such an observation is the potential for recruiters to stereotype potential participants based on previous experiences, and therefore choose not to approach individuals who are otherwise eligible. As the NHS constitution pledges to inform all patients of research studies that are relevant to them and in which they may be eligible to participate [ 20 ], recruiters must be aware of the potential to deviate from this duty. In reality, the decision to participate in clinically focused research is frequently multifaceted and requires potential participants to consider the personal pros and cons of taking part at any given time [ 13 ]. The research nurses interviewed for the current study raised this point and explained their attempts to approach all eligible patients, regardless of any preconceptions about whether or not they would agree to participate.

The general perception that doctors are more successful at recruiting research participants than nurses has been explored previously. Donovan et al. [ 21 ] found no significant difference in recruitment rates between urology consultants and nurses for a prostate cancer RCT and calculated that nurses were more cost-effective recruiters, despite spending longer on average with each patient. In the current study, recruitment was viewed more as a team effort. Having the doctor mention research participation as part of the routine consultation was thought to be beneficial, as was having integrated clinical and academic teams on site. However, these strategies require sufficient staffing and resources and rely on specific funding for research posts [ 9 ]. The possible recruitment benefits of having an established therapeutic relationship with potential study participants [ 22 ], sharing similar cultural backgrounds or languages [ 23 ], and employing peer recruiters [ 24 , 25 ] have all been explored in the literature. However, the influence of the recruiter-participant relationship was not widely discussed by the interviewees, nor were the subjects of culture and ethnicity. There was a general consensus that recruiters adopted the same recruitment strategies for all demographic groups, but observational investigations of recruitment practices would be beneficial to further explore these issues. The use of eligibility criteria that include only those who speak sufficient English was attributed to a lack of resources available for interpreter services. Resource limitations would also restrict the use of peer recruitment programmes or other strategies aimed at including minority groups. As recruiting a representative sample is essential for the generalisability of research findings [ 26 ], additional investigation of this issue is required.

The research scientists interviewed were disappointed that they were no longer permitted to discuss their study directly with potential participants. This finding echoes the views of biomedical research scientists involved in placental perfusion studies [ 27 ]. The scientists raised legitimate concerns that the individuals involved in recruitment did not have sufficient knowledge of the intricacies of the study to be able to fully explain the background and rationale to potential participants, or to answer questions about particular methodologies [ 19 ]. It in current study, it was local, rather than national, policy that dictated the exclusion of research scientists from recruitment activities. The potential benefits of allowing research scientists to recruit participants to their research include reducing the workload for clinicians, providing expert knowledge of the study processes and rationale, and separating research recruitment from routine clinical care. The potential drawbacks include the research scientist having a vested interest in the research without the balance of coexisting clinical duties, and the absence of a previous therapeutic relationship with the patient. Further exploration of this issue is required, however it may be advantageous to consider including clinical research scientists as part of the recruitment team, with safeguards to guarantee that patients are not exploited.

The recommendation to use an opt-out system, where patients are required to contact the research team if they do not wish to be invited to participate in clinical research, was made in a recent systematic review [ 3 ]. Several interviewees suggested that this might be a beneficial system, however this strategy is not currently employed, and further work is required to pilot the use of opt-out within these settings. A variation of this strategy, where patients are invited to opt-in to the anonymous donation of surplus tissue after clinical tests, was also discussed. This type of tissue biobanking is available at the interviewees’ hospital sites for patients with a diagnosis of cancer, but is not routinely adopted in other clinical areas. Further research into the extension of biobanks to include other clinical specialties appears warranted [ 28 ].

The use of open, rather than blinded trial designs, and telephone reminders were also recommended by Treweek et al. [ 3 ]. There is debate over the utility of open study designs due to the potential for increased bias [ 29 ], but this methodology is gaining support [ 30 ]. The interviewees used modified versions of this strategy, such as having an open or crossover phase after the main trial, and believed this was beneficial for recruitment. None of the interviewees specifically discussed the use of telephone reminders.

The recruitment strategies employed by the interviewees were similar to those identified in our recent meta-synthesis, although there was less focus on emphasising the benefits of research participation in the current study [ 9 ]. In addition to the possible coercive aspect of emphasising the benefits , the interviewees believed that altruism was the key reason for patients accepting the invitation to participate, and therefore strategies based on highlighting potential personal benefits would not sit with this premise. The dominance of practical issues as proposed reasons for patients declining the invitation to participate in research have been documented elsewhere [ 9 , 10 ].

The key factors associated with conducting clinically focused research in London were language and travel time. Interviewees were unable to offer interpretation services to facilitate discussions about research with patients who did not speak sufficient English. The most recent government data shows that within the associated South London boroughs between 19.6-20.3 % of residents do not speak English as their primary language, compared with 15.3 % and 7.1 % in the next biggest UK cities Birmingham and Leeds, respectively [ 31 ]. The range of primary languages spoken is also greater in the interviewees’ regions, with more than 54 different languages, compared to 36 in Birmingham and 29 in Leeds [ 31 ]. Traditionally, individuals from ethnic minorities have been considered less likely to participate in clinically focused research, however studies from the USA suggest that this is not the case and recommend that more needs to be done to ensure access to research for minority groups, rather than interventions aimed at increasing willingness [ 32 – 34 ]. Strategies to aid the removal of language barriers identified in the current study would improve access to research and could potentially increase recruitment, however further investigation is required.

The interviewees also observed that patients with long travel times to the hospital were less willing to take part in research. When designing clinically focused studies, it may therefore be useful to explore the interviewees’ suggestions of increasing the use of information technology for data collection and forming collaborations with local healthcare services to minimise participant travel. As the average commuting time is 48 % longer in London than elsewhere in the country [ 35 ] this factor may be less problematic in other locations, however most tertiary and quaternary healthcare services conducting research are likely to experience similar travel issues.

Strengths and limitations

The current study adds to previous work by providing experiential reports and perceptions from research teams in three different non-cancer outpatient settings, within a specified geographical location. However, as the research teams involved were based in South London, further work is required to ascertain whether these findings translate to other regions, nationally and internationally.

Although interviewing was continued until saturation, the small sample size in the current study means it is not possible to infer any differences between the experiences and opinions of the different professions within the research teams. Furthermore, the current study relied on information collected from semi-structured interviews, and may have been subject to reporter bias. Attempts were made to minimise the degree of bias by selecting independent research teams and interviewing participants individually. Additional explorations of the researchers’ practices that include observation of the recruitment situation would be beneficial, but were beyond the scope of the current study.

Infrastructure, nature of the research, recruiter characteristics and participant characteristics were all believed to influence the success of recruitment to clinically focused research. Suggestions to improve recruitment included reducing participant burden, providing support for individuals who do not speak English and forming collaborations with primary care to improve identification of, and access to, potentially eligible patients. Despite the focus on London in the current study, the factors identified are not unique to this location and are therefore likely to be representative of other diverse cities within the UK.

McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, Elbourne DR, Francis D, Garcia J, Roberts I, et al: What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006, 7: 9-10.1186/1745-6215-7-9.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS. http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/liberating-the-nhs-white-paper ,

Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, Cook JA, Kjeldstrøm M, Johansen M, Taskila TK, Sullivan FM, Wilson S, Jackson C, et al: Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013, 3: e002360-

Brown WJ, Bryson L, Byles JE, Dobson AJ, Lee C, Mishra G, Schofield M: Women’s Health Australia: recruitment for a National Longitudinal Cohort Study. Women Health. 1999, 28 (1): 23-40. 10.1300/J013v28n01_03.

Article Google Scholar

Dennis BP, Neese JB: Recruitment and retention of African American elders into community-based research: lessons learned. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2000, 14 (1): 3-11. 10.1016/S0883-9417(00)80003-5.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Steinhauser KE, Clipp EC, Hays JC, Olsen M, Arnold R, Christakis NA, Lindquist JH, Tulsky JA: Identifying, recruiting, and retaining seriously-ill patients and their caregivers in longitudinal research. Palliat Med. 2006, 20 (8): 745-754. 10.1177/0269216306073112.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Seed M, Juarez M, Alnatour R: Improving recruitment and retention rates in preventive longitudinal research with adolescent mothers. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs. 2009, 22 (3): 150-153. 10.1111/j.1744-6171.2009.00193.x.

Yancey AK, Ortega AN, Kumanyika SK: Effective recruitment and retention of minority research participants. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006, 27 (1): 1-28. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102113.

Newington L, Metcalfe A: Researchers’ and clinicians’ perceptions of recruiting participants to clinical research: a thematic meta-synthesis. J Clin Med Res. 2013, In Press

Google Scholar

Cox K, McGarry J: Why patients don’t take part in cancer clinical trials: an overview of the literature. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2003, 12 (2): 114-122. 10.1046/j.1365-2354.2003.00396.x.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Blanch DC, Rudd RE, Wright E, Gall V, Katz JN: Predictors of refusal during a multi-step recruitment process for a randomized controlled trial of arthritis education. Patient Educ Couns. 2008, 73 (2): 280-285. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.06.017.

Madsen SM, Holm S, Davidsen B, Munkholm P, Schlichting P, Riis P: Ethical aspects of clinical trials: the attitudes of participants in two non-cancer trials. J Intern Med. 2000, 248 (6): 463-474. 10.1046/j.1365-2796.2000.00755.x.

Verheggen FWSM, Nieman F, Jonkers R: Determinants of patient participation in clinical studies requiring informed consent: Why patients enter a clinical trial. Patient Educ Couns. 1998, 35 (2): 111-125. 10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00060-3.

Webb MS: Focus groups as an intervention for low-income African-American smokers to promote participation in subsequent intervention studies. Res Nurs Health. 2008, 31: 141-151. 10.1002/nur.20239.

Gilbert H, Leurent B, Sutton S, Morris R, Alexis-Garsee C, Nazareth I: Factors predicting recruitment to a UK wide primary care smoking cessation study (the ESCAPE trial). Fam Pract. 2012, 29 (1): 110-117. 10.1093/fampra/cmr030.

Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Sharma A, Burnell M, Hallett R, Lewis S, Lopez A, Godfrey K, Oram D, et al: Recruitment to multicentre trials—lessons from UKCTOCS: descriptive study. BMJ. 2008, 337: a2079-10.1136/bmj.a2079.

Ritchie J, Spencer L: Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Analyzing Qualitative Data. Edited by: Bryman A, Burgess RG. 1994, London: Routledge, 172-194.

Patterson S, Mairs H, Borschmann R: Successful recruitment to clinical trials: a phased approach to opening gates and building bridges. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011, 11 (73): doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-73

Ziebland S, Featherstone K, Snowdon C, Barker K, Frost H, Fairbank J: Does it matter if clinicians recruiting for a trial don’t understand what the trial is really about? Qualitative study of surgeons’ experiences of participation in a pragmatic multi-centre RCT. Trials. 2007, 8: 4-10.1186/1745-6215-8-4.

The handbook to the NHS Constitution. http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nhs-constitution-for-england ,

Donovan JL, Peters TJ, Noble S, Powell P, Gillatt D, Oliver SE, Lane JA, Neal DE, Hamdy FC: Who can best recruit to randomized trials? Randomized trial comparing surgeons and nurses recruiting patients to a trial of treatments for localized prostate cancer (the ProtecT study). J Clin Epidemiol. 2003, 56 (7): 605-609. 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00083-0.

Jenkins V, Fallowfied L: Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy. Br J Cancer. 2000, 82 (11): 1783-1788. 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1142.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Quinn SC, Butler J, Fryer CS, Garza MA, Kim KH, Ryan C, Thomas SB: Attributes of researchers and their strategies to recruit minority poulations: results of a national survey. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012, 33: 1231-1237. 10.1016/j.cct.2012.06.011.

Larkey LK, Staten LK, Ritenbaugh C, Hall RA, Buller DB, Bassford T, Altimari BR: Recruitment of hispanic women to the women’s health initiative: the case of Embajadoras in Arizona. Control Clin Trials. 2002, 23 (3): 289-298. 10.1016/S0197-2456(02)00190-3.

Bean S, Silva DS: Betwixt & between: peer recruiter proximity in community-based research. Am J Bioeth. 2010, 10 (3): 18-19. 10.1080/15265160903581783.

Kruskal W, Mosteller F: Representative sampling, III: the current statistical literature. Int Stat Rev. 1979, 47 (3): 245-265. 10.2307/1402647.

Halkoaho A, Pietila AM, Vahakangas K: Ethical aspects in placental perfusion studies: views of the researchers. Placenta. 2011, 32 (7): 511-515. 10.1016/j.placenta.2011.04.006.

Marko-Varga G: BioBanking - the holy grail of novel drug and diagnostic developments?. J Clin Bioinformatics. 2011, 1 (1): 14-10.1186/2043-9113-1-14.

Day SJ, Altman DG: Blinding in clinical trials and other studies. BMJ. 2000, 321 (7259): 504-10.1136/bmj.321.7259.504.

Büller HR, Halperin JL, Bounameaux H, Prins M: Double-blind studies are not always optimum for evaluation of a novel therapy: The case of new anticoagulants. J Thromb Haemost. 2008, 6 (2): 227-229.

2011 Census: QS204EW Main language (detailed), unitary authorities in Wales. (Release date 30 January 2013) [ http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/index.html ]

Wendler D, Kington R, Madans J, Van Wye G, Christ-Schmidt H, Pratt LA, Brawley OW, Gross CP, Emanuel E: Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research?. PLoS Med. 2005, 3 (2): e19-

Katz RV, Kegeles S, Kressin NR, Green B, Wang M, James SA, Russell SL, Claudio C: The Tuskegee legacy project: willingness of minorities to participate in biomedical research. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2006, 17 (4): 698-715. 10.1353/hpu.2006.0126.

Ness RB, Nelson DB, Kumanyika SK, Grisso JA: Evaluating minority recruitment into clinical studies: how good are the data?. Ann Epidemiol. 1997, 7 (7): 472-478. 10.1016/S1047-2797(97)00080-X.

Personal travel factsheet: commuting and business travel. [ http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49703/Commuting_and_business_travel_factsheet___April_2011.pdf ]

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/14/10/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the contribution of the researchers who gave their time to be interviewed for this study.

This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, Guy’s Hospital, SE1 9RT, London, UK

Lisa Newington

Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King’s College London, James Clark Maxwell Building, SE1 8WA, London, UK

Alison Metcalfe

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Newington .

Additional information

Competing interests.

There were no competing interests in the conduct of this study.

Authors’ contributions

LN and AM made substantial contributions to the design of the study. LN carried out the interviews, conducted the analysis and wrote the final manuscript. AM advised on research conduct from inception to completion, appraised the analysis process and revised the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Newington, L., Metcalfe, A. Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams. BMC Med Res Methodol 14 , 10 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-10

Download citation

Received : 30 August 2013

Accepted : 16 January 2014

Published : 23 January 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-10

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Participant recruitment
Clinical research
Qualitative

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

General enquiries: [email protected]

Blog Home Home
Explore by categories Categories TOPICS Case Studies Information Architecture Product Development UI/UX Design User Research User Testing UX Career UX Tips Women in UX
News and Updates News

Register Now to Beegin Your Journey!

Published on April 12, 2024

UX Research Recruiting Tips from 19 UX Experts [+ Checklist]

Recruiting the right participant is arguably the hardest part of UX research. And, as research shows , most UX professionals have do deal with it on a monthly basis, some even weekly.

We decided to collect some actionable tips and strategies for overcoming some of the biggest recruiting struggles, with a goal to share expertise and make recruiting participants easier and more efficient.

For that, we’ve reached out to selected UX experts ( Stephanie Walter , Debbie Levitt , Cory Lebson , Michele Ronsen , Larry Marine , Nikki Anderson-Stanier , Caitlin D. Sullivan , Aneta Kmiecik , Tina Ličková , Julian Della Mattia , Ben Levin , Rianne van de Rijt , Sajani Lokuge and Ki Aguero ) and distributed a survey in the UX community to reach a wider audience of UX professionals.

We’ve asked them to share their go-to recruiting tips and strategies to combat common recruiting struggles.

Below you’ll find a list of research recruiting tips full of expert advice on 9 different areas of research recruiting:

Screening
Targeting the Right Participants
Recruitment Strategies
Minimizing No-shows and Cancellations
Handling Challenging Interviews
Fraud Prevention and Dealing with the Scammers
Optimizing Study Conditions & Processes
Effective Communication and Relationship Building
Compensation & Incentives

Grab your 8-step recruiting checklist ✅ at the end of this article!

💡UXtweak's Note

The tips you’re about to read were collected as a part of Research Recruities 🏆, a project aimed to highlight and collect data about arguably the hardest part of research – recruiting participants.

We were seeking recruiting stories, funny, relatable, strange, and full of struggle to share them with the UX community. Apart from that we ran a survey, aiming to gather some statistics about research recruiting, the way UX professionals approach it, and the biggest recruiting mistakes.

➡️ Read Best Research Recruiting Stories

➡️ Check out the Research Recruities Survey Results

This article brings together the best qualitative insight we’ve collected during Research Recruities 🏆 and is meant to give you practical tips for dealing with the most common recruiting struggles.

1. Screening

According to our survey , improper screening of participants is the most common mistake in research recruiting. Failure to conduct effective screening can lead to recruiting a sample that is not representative of your target user group and, overall, ending up with irrelevant results and wasted resources.

If the participants are simply not the right people to give you feedback because they are not who will actually use your service or product, it doesn’t really matter how perfect your research is.

When your research success is at stake, it’s important to take your time and craft a thorough screening process, that will help to guard the integrity of your research.

A good screener is:

Designed to avoid obvious answers, preventing dishonest responses
Specific and crafted with attention to details that you’ll need the participants to provide
Includes diverse response options
Sensitive to the emotional impact of questions, especially on sensitive topics
Verifies participant honesty with follow-up questions and checks
And most importantly: Doesn’t give the smallest hint of what kind of participants you’re looking for.

Taking care of all that seems like a lot of work. However, with the right screening strategy, it can be possible. Let’s take a look at the expert screening tips we’ve collected and learn from them how to put together a good screener.

How to prepare for effective screening?

First things first, just like the research study itself, screeners should be tested. Andreea Dalia Lazar, Ph.D ., emphasizes the importance of testing the screener and manually reviewing the participants until you’re confident with the effectiveness of your screening process.

If possible, test before launching to a wider audience, peer-review and opt for manual reviewing of the participants before getting the confidence that the screening process works as it should.

Andreea Dalia Lazar, Senior UX Researcher

Nikki Anderson , Founder @ User Research Academy, elaborates on this idea, stressing the necessity of a detailed screener. She explains, that sometimes in order to achieve that you may need to make the screener a bit longer.

Think through every piece of information you need from the participant and craft that into a screener question - it might mean the screener is a bit longer (try not to go more than seven questions) but it will enable you to get the right people for your study!

Sensitive screening practices

Screening isn’t just about logistical details, it’s also about handling sensitive topics with care .

Stéphanie Walter , UX Researcher and Inclusive Product Designer in Enterprise UX, recommends approaching those with a good amount of preparation and empathy, acknowledging that some topics may be triggering and it’s important to know how to work with those when crafting your screeners.

Most of the time, screener questions are trivial, to be honest. But, in certain case, depending on the study, they can bring sadness, bring back some bad memories or become triggering for participants or potential participants.

I learned that it’s important to acknowledge that, with the team, when working on sensitive topics. To get a little bit more prepared, to what might happen. You will never write a screener you can 100% follow. But, we can try to bring more empathy in there.

Stéphanie Walter, UX Researcher and Inclusive Product Designer in Enterprise UX

Screening for honesty

Ensuring participant honesty is a critical aspect of the screening process. The goal of a good screener is to filter out fake participants and ensure that no one is there to skew your study results.

There is a number of strategies you can use to check the honesty of your respondents. Here are a couple of tips from Parker Sorensen , Associate Director of Conversion Optimization, on crafting screening questions that avoid leading participants to ‘correct’ answers.

When writing screener questions, write them in a way that the participant cannot guess what would get them into the test. Reason: sometimes participants lie to get into the test and get the incentive, so we want to avoid this.

Example , don't ask ' are you planning to buy a car in the next year? '. Participants can guess that you are most likely filtering out people not interested in buying a car in the next year. I have had tests where I can tell people faked their way through a screener just to get into the test, and it muddies the test results.

Instead , ask something like ' What of the following are you planning to do in the next year? ' with around 10 possible choices, such as buy a house, buy a car, start school, go on a vacation, start a business, and include a none of the above option. Make none of the above filter the person out, and make all options except the one you care about (buy a car) optional, and the buy a car option required.

This way, there is no way to guess what you are asking for, so participants have to be genuine.

Parker Sorensen, Associate Director of Conversion Optimization / UX Research

By offering a range of options without obvious cues, you ensure that participants’ responses reflect their true circumstances or intentions.

Another Respondent 75 recommends adding a layer of verification, suggesting including decoy options in the screener. By incorporating fake brands or answer options, you can immediately identify dishonest participants.

Add fake brands, company names, and stores to a list of recently shopped at, when screening for specific shopping behaviors. Or add fake names of tools or services when asking if users have the experience you need. If they select this, you know they obviously don’t know what they’re talking about ALREADY. That’s an easy one.

Another is to call the participant after the initial screener and ask 2-3 questions to verify their most critical responses and ensure they weren’t misrepresenting themselves.

Respondent 75, UX Researcher, 2-5 years of experience

Screening for attention

Screening for attention is a great way to ensure that participants are genuinely engaged and provide reliable data, helping to prevent fraudulent participants from skewing the results.

It usually involves crafting a simple question but in a way that someone who is rushing through the screeners may not be able to answer correctly.

Here’s a good example of one:

2. Targeting the right participants

Mastering the art of targeting is crucial to obtaining valid research results. However, according to our research , false targeting is also the most detrimental mistake when it comes to research recruiting.

This section delves into expert recommendations on how to hone in on the ideal participants, emphasizing the importance of context, task relevance, and experiential diversity in participant selection.

Understanding Participant Contexts

Karen Mirmanas , UX, Inclusive Design and A11y ResearchOps Coordinator, emphasizes the power of teamwork in getting your participant criteria just right. It’s like putting together a puzzle with your customers or team members to figure out who you really need to talk to. This way, you’re all set up to tackle any bumps in the road when looking for the right people.

Collaborate with customers to refine the participant criteria and set clear expectations regarding the timeline and potential challenges in identifying participants.

Ben Levin , UX Research and Design Strategist, emphasizes the value of grasping the broader context of your participants’ lives . It’s about getting a holistic view of their environment, which can reveal deeper insights into their interactions with the product. This kind of broader perspective can significantly inform your research direction and outcomes.

Know your surrounds. At the time I was not well versed in the economic backdrop of the neighborhoods surrounding our office space, but they were at the time quite economically underserved.

And particularly doing research in Financial Services, it’s easy to have a blind spot about that. Know your audience and understand their environment; that’s not just helpful for product design, it applies to the research process too.

Ben Levin, UX Research and Design Strategist

Focusing on task and experience levels

Larry Marine , veteran UX researcher and author, recommends thinking about what people are doing with your product or what they know, not just who they are.

He suggests that fresh insights often come from unexpected sources, like those unfamiliar or even unsatisfied with your product. Finding these unique voices might require extra effort but can offer invaluable perspectives.

Avoid the demographics and focus on the user tasks and the knowledge and experience levels for those tasks. Avoid recruiting existing customers (unless they are your target market) because they have already drunk the Kool Aid and are too familiar with your current product.

The best users are people who have never seen your product and people who have seen it, but didn’t like it. Unfortunately, those are also the hardest to find or recruit.

Larry Marine, veteran UX researcher and author

3. Recruitment strategies

One of the biggest challenges out there, especially when it comes to B2B recruitment, is to find the right participants and recruit enough people. Based on the qualitative data we’ve collected, researchers seem to be often struggling to recruit niche audiences for their studies, especially when dealing with tight deadlines.

This often leads to them having to settle for a smaller sample, looking for similar audiences, or using convenience sampling as their saving grace, which is not always representative.

Here’s a list of tips we’ve collected from UX experts to help overcome this issue and prevent under-recruiting from happening:

Using various recruitment methods

The most common and effective advice here is to start diversifying your recruitment channels. In addition to that, Aneta Kmiecik , Senior UX Designer, suggests integrating screener surveys within apps and leveraging interactions with customer success teams.

In B2B it’s common to have challenges with recruitment and not get statistically significant results. Try different methods to recruit users - from talking with the customer success team, sending e-mails, to publishing a screener survey inside the app to searching for participants in your closest network.

It’s important to use various methods for recruiting users. I often find it effective to recruit users in the context, e.g. in the app, when they are done with the tasks that are related to my research goal.

To add to this, I’d say that using your stakeholders can also be helpful, especially when we deal with enterprise clients. And if you’re really struggling with recruiting your user group, try to use proxy - find similar people.

Better this than nothing! Last but not least, plan long term and try to build systems if your organization is new to user research. This will pay off 🙂And enjoy the process!

Karen Mirmanas, UX, Inclusive Design and A11y ResearchOps Coordinator also recommends tapping into local communities, tailored to your target demographic to broaden your reach:

Connect with local communities, forums, and social media groups specific to the target audience and provide referral bonuses.

Building your own pool of participants

Another great tip, from a Product Discovery expert, Caitlin Sullivan , is to build your own pool of potential participants by leveraging referrals:

Ask every participant you find who is a really good fit if they know someone who might be up for joining your research. It can make recruiting the right kind of people much faster!

Caitlin Sullivan, Product Discovery and User Research Expert

This can be a great strategy to accelerate your recruitment process and lead to high-quality candidates who may otherwise be hard to reach.

Documenting recruitment experiences

Last but definitely not least, a strategic advice from a UX research leader Ki Aguero , to document your recruitment journey:

If you’re experimenting with a new method of recruitment, document your steps! One of my team members has tried three or four avenues of recruiting users, with various success. Participant quality has varied, and she’s learning that what works for one project doesn’t mean it’ll work for all of them.

By documenting the steps and outcomes of different recruitment routes, another team member is able to understand the tradeoffs of different techniques and follow in your footsteps with minimal hand-holding. Great for a newer, less-established team that needs to be efficient with their time.

Ki Aguero, UX Research & Content Strategy Leader

Documenting what methods were effective or fell short provides great insights for future projects. This can also help in refining your strategies over time and guiding other team members.

4. Minimizing no-shows and cancellations

No-shows and cancelations are another problem that significantly disrupts the research process and leads to a bunch of wasted resources, as well as the lack of actionable insights. When out of 5 recruited participants, only 3 show up, the collected data may not be enough to draw accurate conclusions.

However, no-shows are possible to prevent if you plan the study strategically and get yourself a good plan B , in case something like this happens. Here’s what experts suggest:

Over-recruiting

One strategy you can choose to combat no-shows is ensuring you have a couple of “back-ups”, and recruit 1-2 (for qualitative research) or 10% (for quantitative research) more participants than you need. The reality is, that most often not all the participants will complete the study or even show up. This type of proactive planning will help you maintain a desired sample size.

The recruiting stories we’ve collected are also a great example that studies don’t always go as planned and in some cases, you’ll even need to exclude certain participants from the analysis . Everything can happen, so it’s always great to have a backup.

Who you recruit is a make or break element, but many studies will have 1 or 2 people who are not great. Sometimes they have to be thrown out of the data. It’s best to recruit a few more than you need to account for no shows, cancellations, and people who don’t end up in the final set of data.

Debbie Levitt, MBA, Lead UX Research and CXO

Sending Reminders and Confirmation to the Participants

Another way to minimize no-shows is to create a series of confirmations for the participants.

This isn’t merely about sending out reminders; it’s about establishing a consistent and reassuring communication channel that keeps participants engaged and informed, thereby reducing the likelihood of no-shows.

Karen Mirmanas , UX, Inclusive Design and A11y ResearchOps Coordinator, highlights:

When scheduling interviews, include multiple layers of confirmation and reminders, such as emails and text messages, to minimize no-shows.

Scheduling with Buffer Time

Caitlin Sullivan , Product Discovery and User Research Expert brings a different perspective to the table, focusing on the logistical aspect of scheduling. By integrating buffer time between sessions, researchers can accommodate unexpected delays or extended discussions, ensuring that the research schedule remains flexible and adaptive to real-world variables.

Don’t try to be too efficient when booking in sessions - it’s better to leave enough time in between user sessions to leave space for unexpectedly long conversations, and for the space to refocus after each one if someone has led you completely off plan!

5. Handling challenging interviews

Diving into interviews, especially in UX research, can sometimes feel like navigating a river – you never know when you’ll hit a rapid or a smooth stretch. Research is a people’s business, humans are unpredictable, and sometimes interviews will go completely off script.

That’s why being prepared for those unpredictable moments can really make a difference in the quality of insights you gather.

Let’s walk through some expert advice on how to gracefully handle those curveballs during interviews, ensuring you stay on course and keep the conversation insightful and genuine.

Maintaining a Human Touch

Caitlin Sullivan , Product Discovery and User Research Expert, empathizes the importance of staying human and relatable during interviews. It’s not just about following a script; it’s about creating a connection with the participant.

When the unexpected happens, and you need to pivot, doing so with a touch of empathy and understanding can turn a potentially tricky situation into a moment of genuine insight.

Being more “human”, and feeling less pressured to sound like a “scientist” in moments where a participant throws you off-plan can help.

I’ve many times reminded myself that it’s completely okay to say something like, 'James, I’m so sorry to do this, but I have to switch topics with you to get a few more answers or my client will kill me!', I recommend finding a few ways of guiding someone like that in the worst case scenarios that feel natural for you.

Pilot Testing your Studies

Rianne van de Rijt , UX Researcher & Designer, introduces the concept of pilot tests as a crucial step in your interview prep. Think of these as your research rehearsals; they’re your chance to fine-tune your approach, ensuring you’re fully equipped to navigate the actual interviews.

I always run a couple of Pilot test studies , even with recruiting participants. This way you can catch major issues if there are any early on in your study, without having sent the study to too many participants. This way you are able to make changes to reach a more suitable participant audience.

By identifying potential issues early on, you’re not just troubleshooting; you’re enhancing the overall resilience and effectiveness of your research strategy.

6. Optimizing study conditions and processes

Another crucial aspect is setting the stage for your study. It is about more than just preparing questions, but optimizing every aspect of the study environment, process, and instructions to ensure everything runs smoothly.

This amount of preparation can help to enhance both your and the participant’s comfort and ensure that nothing is left behind.

Let’s delve into some expert strategies for creating optimal study conditions that can lead to more insightful research outcomes.

Creating the Right Environment

Sajani Lokuge , senior UX designer, emphasizes the importance of flexibility and authenticity in setting up your research environment. She highlights the importance of adapting to the realities of your participants’ lives and, where possible, integrating the natural settings they operate in.

Be flexible with scheduling to accommodate participants' real-world constraints. This could involve conducting interviews during unconventional hours or in unique environments. Whenever possible, aim for research sessions in authentic workspaces. This provides a richer context for understanding user behaviors and challenges.

Rianne van de Rijt , UX Researcher & Designer, points out how crucial the specifics of the environment can be, even down to the lighting.

Fine-tuning these details, will help you ensure that participants are comfortable and can interact with your study material in the most effective way, ultimately enhancing the quality of the collected insights.

Sometimes it can be good to outline the surroundings in which the participant should best complete the study, for example, for our study the tool needed a well lit surrounding. After running a couple of pilot sessions we changed our instructions for participants to check if they were taking the study from a well lit room.

Streamlining the Research Process

A UX research leader Ki Aguero also recommends mapping out every stage of the participant’s journey, to ensure nothing is overlooked and the processes are running smoothly, especially in longitudinal tests.

For complex studies like longitudinal tests, I’ve sometimes found it helpful to 'storyboard' all the touchpoints a participant will go through. 'Screeners > NDA > Reminder message > Intro session > Self-guided diary entries' - you get the idea.

This has been helpful for crafting the right set of screeners/intro materials so they start the study off on the right foot, and it’s made it easier to remember all the things I should include in follow-up messages.

7. Fraud prevention and data integrity

Fake participants, scammers, and even bots have been bothering research teams more and more over the years. Those are the people who are training to game the screeners and enter your study, even though most often they are not representative of your target user base.

Fraudulent participants are only there for incentives and don’t provide any relevant insights, which can significantly skew the results of your study. With the rise of AI, this issue is becoming even more critical.

It’s important to be aware of such people and build a fortress of screening strategies to keep the imposters away. Luckily, over the years, seasoned UX experts have come up with a bunch of those.

Let’s delve into the world of fraud prevention and see what they recommend!

Using Fraud Prevention Strategies

Here’s the work-in-progress list of fraud prevention and detection wisdom from Michele Ronsen , Author, Researcher, Educator, Founder, UX Coach:

1️⃣ Tip #1: Do not allow participants to schedule study sessions directly once they’ve qualified through the screener.

Teams of scammers will sometimes re-take screeners until they’ve 'passed,' then use those answers to qualify under other additional identities, or share the answers with other scammers. Inviting participants to schedule their sessions takes longer, yet it offers additional benefits.

It enables a secondary screening process, provides a chance to confirm the accuracy of the contact information they've provided, and allows you to cross-reference responses to identify potential duplicates among the screeners.

Michele Ronsen, Author, Researcher, Educator, Founder, UX Coach

2️⃣ Tip #2: Protect your own PII.

Create and use a separate email address that does not include your full name and can be deleted after the study. (An example would be [email protected] or [email protected]) This can protect your identity and limit future questions or harassment.

3️⃣ Tip #3 Begin your session with what seems like small talk but verifies location.

“(The local weather, sports teams, pop culture, etc.) Then reconfirm your study’s must-have criteria by asking your core screening questions again. Pay attention to whether they provide the same responses they submitted in their initial screener.”

(The local weather, sports teams, pop culture, etc.) Then reconfirm your study's must-have criteria by asking your core screening questions again. Pay attention to whether they provide the same responses they submitted in their initial screener.

Michele also emphasizes a very important thing for us all to understand when it comes to dealing with fake participants.

Screening is always going to be a ‘dance’ between vetting participants just thoroughly enough, asking TOO MUCH and potentially scaring someone away, or negatively impacting your study data.

Understanding that some fraudulent behavior is driven by desperation in poor economies highlights the need for a compassionate yet vigilant approach in research screening processes.

Leveraging Tricks for Ensuring Participant Honesty

A UX research leader Ki Aguero , introduces another ingenious tactic to counter dishonesty: the “fear of god” question meant to be reminding participants of the seriousness of their involvement and weeding out those who might be tempted to misrepresent themselves.

If you can’t pre-screen participants to confirm they’re being honest, I sometimes include a 'fear of God' question. It’s a little reminder of the consequences of misrepresenting themselves.

So at the end of all the other screeners, I’ve got something like, 'For this study, we are seeking ... (whatever attributes). If you do not meet these attributes and proceed with the test, you may ... (be expelled from the panel, have the session cancelled, not be paid for participating). Are you sure you meet these criteria?'.

It’s a great way to let anyone who’s being less than truthful out of your test before they get in there and muck up your data by pretending to be something they’re not.

8. Effective communication and relationship-building

Establishing clear and effective communication, as well as a comfortable environment for the participants is one of the crucial aspects when it comes to recruiting people and conducting interviews.

This section explores expert advice on how to elevate your communication game and build strong, trust-based relationships with your participants.

Engaging with the participants in an authentic and humanly manner

UX researcher Marc Busch reminds us that at the heart of effective communication is authenticity. Participants are more responsive and open when they feel they’re interacting with a real person, not a faceless entity. Understanding that is so helpful for setting up the right environment for your research studies.

Be authentic. It may sound cliché, but participants prefer interacting with real people, not just brands, organizations, or companies. They want to connect with YOU. And if they're not interested, that’s perfectly fine!

He also highlights the importance of resilience and empathy in recruitment, acknowledging the diverse perspectives and responses you might encounter, and maintaining a positive, open-minded approach:

Participant Recruitment is a people’s business. You need to connect with people from diverse backgrounds, each with their own opinions and worldviews. It's important to recognize that not everyone shares our enthusiasm for UX research, or even fully understands what exactly we do (after all, it's still a complex field to explain).

Be prepared to happily accept numerous 'no, not interested' responses, even when you believe the opportunity would be mutually beneficial!

Sajani Lokuge , senior UX designer, supports this statement and emphasizes the critical role of relationship building in UX research.

Establishing rapport with participants is crucial. Invest time in building a connection, especially when dealing with niche or hard-to-reach audiences.

Personalizing communication

Adding on the sentiment of personalized interaction, one of our respondents advises treating each participant as an individual, not just another data point and reflecting this in your communication. Lucie Audigier , Lead User Researcher, empathizes the importance of such personalization:

Consider every participant as a person I'm sending only personalized communication. To be greatfull.

9. Compensation & Incentives

Providing fair and timely compensation is the ultimate way to motivate participants to complete your study and retain them for future tests. Incentives are crucial for acknowledging the value of participants’ time and contributions, so they should not be overlooked.

Here’s what experts have to say when it comes to the topic of fair compensation:

Ensuring Timely Compensation

One of our respondents sheds the light on the critical importance of punctual payment. Timely compensation not only respects the participants’ time and effort but also fosters a positive relationship, encouraging them to engage in future studies and even become ambassadors for your research through referrals. They also recommend establishing a dedicated team of ResearchOps to oversee the entire recruitment and compensation process.

Compensate in time! This is something my company is currently struggling with, but what I've found (from my past company) is that when we pay the participants on time, they are more willing to participate again and even refer their network to us for future studies.

Have a Research Operations team to manage the recruitment (from recruiting, screening, tracking participation, payment) - it is a full time job! Treat them well and appreciate them because recruitment is difficult (it changes with the seasons such as needing to take into account holidays, school schedules if working with academia, etc.).

Be aware of the yearly rhythm to help with recruitment timing (e.g., e.g., if recruiting teachers and students, they are more free in the summer and more available to be interviewed).

Jasmine (Lo) Winata, Research Operations Specialist

Providing Fair and Meaningful Incentives

Another expert, Sajani Lokuge , emphasizes how important it is to offer incentives that resonate with the participants’ interests and needs. When the compensation aligns with what participants value, their engagement and investment in the study deepen, leading to more authentic and insightful contributions.

Offer incentives that align with the participants' needs or interests. It could be something related to their work, making the participation more meaningful for them.

Monetary incentives, including gift cards or vouchers, are considered to be the most effective and popular out there. However it’s important to calculate the right amount of money for each specific type of study. In some cases, offering too much can lead to biased responses, while offering too little can result in participants rushing through the study trying to save their time.

When in doubt, we recommend using tools like User Research Incentives Calculator by User Interviews to help make sure that your incentives are fair. Based on the type of your study, the research method and the study duration, the tool will create a customized suggestion on the amount of monetary compensation you should provide.

✅ Grab your 8-step UX Recruiting Checklist !

We made a handy checklist based on the tips above to help you nail your next recruiting! It is designed to be your ultimate companion through every phase of the recruitment process + has a handy screening worksheet inside!

📥 Grab your Copy

What’s next?

That was it for our list of research recruiting tips. This article was filled with valuable insights from industry experts, and we sincerely hope that these tips will help make your next recruiting effort smoother and more effective.

To make it even easier for you, grab this research recruiting checklist with all the tips you need to check out to ensure a smooth recruiting process.

➡️ If you haven’t already, dive into the world of recruiting stories in this Research Recruities collection: Hilarious & Strange: UXR Participant Recruiting Stories that You Need to Hear

➡️ Tap into the Research Recruities Survey Results , discover the stats about the most common research recruiting mistakes and tips to overcome them!

And of course, check out UXtweak! 🐝

We offer multiple ways to make the recruiting process easier for you , including a 155M+ User Panel with quality check, an Own Database feature, which is basically a CRM for managing your participants and inviting them into ANY UXtweak study, and an Onsite Recruiting Widget , that helps to seamlessly recruit your website or app visitors for research studies!

Tired of Struggling with Recruiting?

Let UXtweak handle it all for you! An all-in-one UX research tool, that handles everything from recruiting to study analysis.

Hive full of creative minds, UX researchers, UX/UI designers, content writers and editors dedicated to sharing their collective knowledge and expertise with the UX community. Our content team collaborates to produce high-quality resources on a variety of topics related to UX research, UX/UI design, usability and user testing, and a lot of actionable UX tips. You can find insights and practical tips that can help businesses improve their user experience and achieve their goals in our Blog Posts and Guides . You can find articles by our staff, as well as mentions of UXtweak and our content in the top UX publications such as Smashing Magazine , Interaction Design Foundation , UX Magazine , UXmatters , UXbooth , UX Mastery, and UXtools . UXtweak and our content have also been featured by companies such as Figma , Wix , HubSpot , Elementor, Toptal , Avast , CareerFoundry , and others.

UXtweak is buzzing with expert UX research, making thousands of products more user friendly every day

You might be interested in

Effective Customer Interviews: A Practical Approach

In this article, we have collated everything you need to know about customer interviews, including a step-by-step guide on how to conduct one and our top tips to nail it. Read more ...

UserTesting vs Lookback: Compare for 2024

Deciding on the best user experience tool for your project? Compare Lookback and UserTesting to see which fits your needs and discover a notable alternative in the process. Read more ...

What is Affinity Mapping in UX? w/Examples

In this article we'll explain what is affinity mapping, how to do it yourself, and ways you can use affinity diagram to improve your research process. Read more ...

Card Sorting
Tree Testing
Preference Test
Five Second Test
Session Recording
Mobile Testing
First Click Test
Prototype Testing
Website Testing
Onsite Recruiting
Own Database
Documentation
Product features
UX Glossary
Comparisons

IMAGES

Qualitative Research: Definition, Types, Methods and Examples (2023)
Ultimate Guide to Recruiting Participants for Qualitative Research
Recruiting for Qualitative Research in Four Steps
Qualitative Recruitment Flowchart [adapted from Chan et al., (2016
6 Types of Qualitative Research Methods: A Quick Guide
Qualitative Research

VIDEO

2023 PhD Research Methods: Qualitative Research and PhD Journey
What is Qualitative Research and Types
Risks and Interviews
Crash Course For AIIMS NORCETEXAM & ESIC, DSSSB #dghs #norcetexam #dsssb #kgmu
Discover funding opportunities for qualitative researchers
Research Methodology : Qualitative and Quantitative evaluation processes for sustainability program

COMMENTS

Successful Recruitment to Qualitative Research: A Critical Reflection
The methodology literature contains articles chronicling recruitment difficulties in qualitative research (e.g., Bonisteel et al., 2021; Price et al., 2020), but reports of successful recruitment are limited.Motivations to participate in research have received some attention in the literature, but such accounts of motivation are largely anecdotal and from the perspective of the researcher (e.g ...
How to Recruit Participants for Qualitative Research (2022 Edition)
So, it's a good idea to always over-recruit. For focus groups it's common practice to recruit two additional participants per group e.g., recruit 10 to seat 8 per group. If 9 or even 10 show up, it's up to the moderator and client if all participants will be included in the focus group or not.
Recruiting participants for a qualitative research study
These included (non)payment of participants and reciprocal arrangements with local community groups. These researchers recommend that researchers use flexible recruitment strategies that attend to the local contexts in which research is being conducted. Let's look further at the kinds of recruitment strategies used by researchers.
Improving trial recruitment processes: how qualitative methodologies
Qualitative research methods have been used to address various aspects of randomised trials; these include developing and understanding the acceptability of the intervention being trialled, the trial design, process and conduct (including recruitment and retention), explaining trial outcomes, and providing contextual understanding of the target ...
Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the
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.
(PDF) Recruitment of Research Participants
The recruitment process involves identifying potential research participants and providing them with the information to establish their interest to join a proposed research study. Research studies ...
Successful Recruitment to Qualitative Research: A Critical Reflection
Recruitment to qualitative research is an important methodological consideration. However, the process of recruitment is under-communicated in qualitative research articles and methods textbooks.
Recruitment of Community-Based Samples: Experiences and Recommendations
Description of recruitment methods tends to be underreported in the literature thus highlighting the gap in the knowledge base regarding effective strategies to overcome ... Factors influencing recruitment to research: Qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 10. 10.1186 ...
Participant Recruitment for Qualitative Research: A ...
The process used to locate and recruit participants in a qualitative study is important for controlling bias and for efficiently obtaining a representative sample. In complex societies without clearly bounded groups from which to sample, participant recruitment requires especially careful consideration. Yet few qualitative researchers discuss their recruitment methods. This paper describes a ...
Participant Recruitment in Qualitative Research: Expert Tips & Mistakes
Pros and cons of different qualitative research recruiting methods ‍ DIY recruitment: If your budget is extremely tight (nonexistent) or your sample size incredibly small (1-2 participants), then DIY recruiting tools like Craigslist or social media can be a great, low-cost option. However, it'll be difficult to reach the right audiences without the targeting capabilities afforded by the ...
Understanding and Improving Recruitment to Randomised ...
Whilst these methods produce important insights about recruitment practices, the challenges of integrating qualitative research with RCTs has been well documented. For instance, recruiters are often reluctant to provide audio recordings of consultations [24] , [26] , [38] , [44] , [50] , [52] .
Successful Recruitment to Qualitative Research: A Critical Reflection
Recruitment to qualitative research is an important methodological consideration. However, the process of recruitment is under-communicated in qualitative research articles and methods textbooks. A robust recruitment plan enhances trustworthiness and overall research success. Although recruitment has recently received increased attention in the qualitative methodology literature, a more ...
Improving trial recruitment processes: how qualitative methodologies
Qualitative research methods have been used to address various aspects of randomised trials; these include developing and understanding the acceptability of the intervention being trialled, the trial design, process and conduct (including recruitment and retention), explaining trial outcomes, and providing contextual understanding of the target ...
Recruitment for qualitative research
The sampling process is the selection of x number of phone numbers to call. The recruitment is the actually calling and asking someone to take part in the research. Now, obviously not everyone is going to answer the phone, or want to answer any questions. So you then have a list of recruited people, which you might actually want to sample from ...
Participant Recruitment Strategies for Qualitative Research
Participant recruitment is part and parcel of every qualitative research for UX. It can be very time-consuming, costly and sometimes frustrating to recruit participants. After identifying the participant criteria, research methods, and settings to fit your research objectives, you can proceed to participant recruitment.
Reconceptualizing Recruitment in Qualitative Research
In the end, our case underscores the centrality and potential fluidity of participant recruitment within qualitative research. References. Adams M., Caffrey L., McKevitt C. (2015). Barriers and opportunities for enhancing patient recruitment and retention in clinical research: Findings from an interview study in an NHS academic health science ...
What Is Qualitative Research?
Qualitative research methods. Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods.These are some of the most common qualitative methods: Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes. Interviews: personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations. Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among ...
Reconceptualizing Recruitment in Qualitative Research
Recruitment may be seen as merely a procedure part of conducting research and be of less interest to academics fo-cused on learning about a particular topic. Regardless, omitting recruitment from methodological discussions ob-scures the potential complexity and centrality of participant recruitment within qualitative research design.
Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the
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 ...
UX Research Recruiting Tips from 19 UX Experts [+ Checklist]
Using various recruitment methods. ... One strategy you can choose to combat no-shows is ensuring you have a couple of "back-ups", and recruit 1-2 (for qualitative research) or 10% ... Based on the type of your study, the research method and the study duration, the tool will create a customized suggestion on the amount of monetary ...
Trust, nuance, and care: Advantages and challenges of repeat
Our experience in a recent qualitative research project was similar to that of Wax and Shapiro. In the project Crime in Latin America (CRIMLA), which had a high-intensity, repeat-interview research design, over 350 incarcerated persons in seven Latin American countries were interviewed three times with up to a week between sessions.Analyzing the fieldwork notes, logs, and interview excerpts ...

How to Recruit Participants for Qualitative Research (2022 Edition)

6 Steps to Recruiting Quality Participants

1. Hold a Stakeholder Meeting to Define Research Objectives

2. Develop and Fine Tune Screener Survey Questions

3. Assess For Articulateness and Enthusiasm in the Conversational Screen

4. Consider Using Advanced Screening

5. The Importance of Over-Recruiting

6. Offer Fair & Quick Compensation

Recruiting Made Quick and Easy with Respondent

5 Researchers Share Why They Love Respondent For User Interviews

Remote Research: The Best Strategies for Successful User Interviews

How To Uncover Blind Spots In Your User Research

Recruiting participants for a qualitative research study

Recruiting via personal and professional connections

Recruiting via fliers, newspaper advertisements, emails and letters

Recruiting through face-to-face interactions

Difficulties in recruitment for research studies

Share this:

Published by qualpage

One thought on “ Recruiting participants for a qualitative research study ”

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Recruitment of Community-Based Samples: Experiences and Recommendations for Optimizing Success

Melissa Northwood

Conclusions

Recruitment experiences: Two community-based studies

Study two synopsis

Studies’ commonalities

Recruitment challenges of studies one and two

Engaging referral partners

Implementing multi-methods

Study sample diversity

Recruitment facilitators

Building relationships

Drawing on existing networks

Limitations

Author Biographies

Improving trial recruitment processes: how qualitative methodologies can be used to address the top 10 research priorities identified within the PRioRiTy study

What is the value of qualitative methods in trial recruitment research?

How can questions be answered by qualitative methods?

Interviews and focus groups

Observation, audio recording, and documentary analysis

Conclusions: where do we go from here?

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Availability of data and materials

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Publisher’s Note

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Recruitment for qualitative research

Daniel Turner

Sign up for more like this.

Have a language expert improve your writing

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

Table of contents

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams

Conclusions

Ethical approval

Influential factors in the recruitment of participants

Infrastructure

Nature of the research

Recruiter characteristics

Participant characteristics

Steps taken to optimise recruitment

Why do some individuals consent to participate and others decline?

Specific issues for London

Local research community

Patient population

Strengths and limitations

Pre-publication history

Acknowledgements