Table 3 Pros (positive aspects) and cons (negative aspects) for each recruitment strategy tested in the study
From: Recruitment challenges in clinical research including cancer patients and caregivers
Pros | Cons | |
|---|---|---|
On-site recruitment by the researcher | Easy to register everyone contacted | Time consuming for the researcher compared to the other strategies |
Possible to document reasons for non-participation | Researcher must approach many persons and potentially accept rejections | |
Trust between patient and researcher | Difficult to know who is eligible | |
Personal relation between researcher and potential participant | Difficult to know who had already received the information | |
Relying on providers at hospital | Information given to patients from someone they trust | Lack of time for the health personnel |
Easy to screen who is eligible | Forgetting to mention the study to patients | |
Confusion about the recruitment | ||
Did not prioritize the recruitment | ||
Patient/caregiver must sign and return form with approval to being contacted | ||
Dependent on one extra person in the recruitment process | ||
No information about how many received the brochures | ||
No information about the reasons for not participating | ||
Advertising in newspaper | Information reaches large number of people | Low response rate |
More genuinely interested and serious about participation | Patient/caregiver must contact the researcher team | |
Less effort for the researcher | No information about how many read the information | |
No information about the reasons for not participating | ||
Internet and social media | Can be tailor specified to certain persons | Too much information on the web, might be blinded to the information |
Internet commonly used | Difficult to screen what is serious and what is scam | |
Future-oriented approach | Patient/caregiver must contact the researcher team | |
Reaches many individuals | No information about how many read the information | |
Less effort for the researcher | No information about the reasons for not participating | |
Information presented at a rehab center | Trust between the employee and the potential participant | Forgot to inform about the study |
Easy to screen who is eligible | Confusion about the recruitment | |
Less effort for the researcher | Did not prioritize the recruitment | |
Already received the information at the hospital | ||
Patient/caregiver must sign and return form with approval to being contacted | ||
No information about how many received the information | ||
No information about the reasons for not participating | ||
Routine care letters strategy | Contact outside of the clinic environment, in their familiar surroundings. | Many did not answer the phone. |
More informed prior to the call from the researcher | Many had not read the brochure since it was attached to information about startup for treatment | |
Potential participants did not have to remember to contact the researcher | Time consuming (compared to the opt-in strategies) | |
Precision of targeting a specific population | ||
Easy to document who had been contacted | ||
Easy to screen who is eligible | ||
Easy to make an agreement for further contact/new phone call | ||
Possible to document reasons for non-participation |