recruitment strategies for qualitative research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

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

Marita hennessy.

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

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

Andrew Hunter

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

Patricia Healy

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

Sandra Galvin

Catherine houghton, associated data.

Not applicable.

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.

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.

The “top 10” research questions prioritised in the Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials (PRioRiTy) study

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 – 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 – 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.

Acknowledgements

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

Availability of data and materials

Abbreviations, authors’ 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.

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.

Contributor Information

Marita Hennessy, Email: [email protected] .

Andrew Hunter, Email: [email protected] .

Patricia Healy, Email: [email protected] .

Sandra Galvin, Email: [email protected] .

Catherine Houghton, Email: [email protected] .

Recruitment of Research Participants

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 24 January 2018
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Narendar Manohar 2 ,
• Freya MacMillan 3 ,
• Genevieve Z. Steiner 4 &
• Amit Arora 2 , 5 , 6 , 7  

1243 Accesses

4 Citations

Successful recruitment and retention of study participants are essential for the overall success of a research study. 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 are often time and labor intensive, and inappropriate recruitment of research participants can significantly impact the study findings. This chapter will introduce readers to a range of associated issues and offer possible solutions and mitigation strategies to enhance research participant engagement. First, this chapter describes the issues surrounding investigators’ and potential participants’ expectations related to their involvement in research. Next, the chapter will identify the facilitators, barriers, and challenges associated with recruitment and retention of participant. Then, the chapter will highlight some traditional and modern recruitment and retention techniques, for participation in health research across the life course: children and adolescents, adults, and seniors. Last, the chapter will detail the specific attention, resources, and sensitivity required to maximize recruitment and retention when conducting research with specific population groups such as minority populations and medically compromised people.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Adams J, Silverman M, Musa D, Peele P. Recruiting older adults for clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1997;18(1):14–26.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alibali MW, Nathan MJ. Conducting research in schools: a practical guide. J Cogn Dev. 2010;11(4):397–407.

Arora A, Bedros D, Bhole S, Do LG, Scott J, Blinkhorn A, Schwarz E. Child and family health nurses’ experiences of oral health of preschool children: a qualitative approach. J Public Health Dent. 2012;72(2):149–55.

Arora A, Manohar N, Liamputtong P, Do LG, Eastwood J, Bhole S. Researching the perceptions of Vietnamese migrant caregivers for an oral health literacy study in Australia. SAGE research methods cases. London: Sage; 2017b. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526423320 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Arora A, Manohar N, Bedros D, Hua APD, You SYH, Blight V, Ajwani S, Eastwood J, Bhole S. Lessons learnt in recruiting disadvantaged families to a birth cohort study. BMC Nursing. 2018;17(7):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-018-0276-0 .

Auster J, Janda M. Recruiting older adults to health research studies: a systematic review. Australas J Ageing. 2009;28(3):149–51.

Australian Government Productivity Commission. Early childhood education and care. 2015. Retrieved from http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2015/childcare-education-and-training/early-childhood-education-and-care/rogs-2015-volumeb-chapter3.pdf

Bartlett R, Wright T, Olarinde T, Holmes T, Beamon ER, Wallace D. Schools as sites for recruiting participants and implementing research. J Community Health Nurs. 2017;34(2):80–8.

Berry DC, Neal M, Hall EG, McMurray RG, Schwartz TA, Skelly AH, Smith-Miller C. Recruitment and retention strategies for a community-based weight management study for multi-ethnic elementary school children and their parents. Public Health Nurs. 2013;30(1):80–6.

Bonevski B, Randell M, Paul C, Chapman K, Twyman L, Bryant J,… Hughes C. Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-42 .

Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, Treweek S, Smith CT, Young B, Williamson P. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials. 2014;15(1):399. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-399 .

Brugge D, Kole A, Lu W, Must A. Susceptibility of elderly Asian immigrants to persuasion with respect to participation in research. J Immigr Minor Health. 2005;2(7):93–101.

Bruzzese JM, Gallagher R, McCann-Doyle S, Reiss PT, Wijetunga NA. Effective methods to improve recruitment and retention in school-based substance use prevention studies. J Sch Health. 2009;79(9):400–7.

Caldwell PH, Hamilton S, Tan A, Craig JC. Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11):e1000368.

Chesser AK, Woods NK, Smothers K, Rogers N. Health literacy and older adults a systematic review. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2016;2:2333721416630492.

Chiu CL, Hearn NL, Lind JM. Development of a risk score for extraintestinal manifestations of coeliac disease. Medicine (United States). 2016;95(15):1–6. [e3286]. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003286 .

Google Scholar  

Clemson L, Cumming RG, Kendig H, Swann M, Heard R, Taylor K. The effectiveness of a community-based program for reducing the incidence of falls in the elderly: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(9):1487–94.

Clinical Connection. 2017. Retrieved 23 Nov 2017, from https://www.clinicalconnection.com/

Craig SL, Austin A, McInroy LB. School-based groups to support multiethnic sexual minority youth resiliency: preliminary effectiveness. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2014;31(1):87–106.

CraigsList. 2017. Retrieved 23 Nov 2017, from https://newyork.craigslist.org/search/vol

Daley AM. Adolescent-friendly remedies for the challenges of focus group research. West J Nurs Res. 2013;35(8):1043–59.

Endometriosis Australia. 2017. Retrieved 23 Nov 2017, from https://www.facebook.com/EndometriosisAustralia .

Farmer D, Jackson S, Camacho F, Hall M. Attitudes of African American and low socioeconomic status white women toward medical research. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007;18(1):85–99.

Ford ME, Havstad SL, Davis SD. A randomized trial of recruitment methods for older African American men in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Clin Trials. 2004;1(4):343–51.

George S, Duran N, Norris K. A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(2):e16–31.

Giarelli E, Bruner D, Nguyen E, Basham S, Marathe P, Dao D, … Nguyen G. Research participation among Asian American women at risk for cervical cancer: exploratory pilot of barriers and enhancers. J Immigr Minor Health. 2011;13(6):1055–68.

Glasser SP. Recruitment and retention in clinical research. In: Glasser SP, editor. Essentials of clinical research. Switzerland: Springer International; 2014. p. 177–92.

Hayfield N, Huxley C. Insider and outsider perspectives: reflections on researcher identities in research with lesbian and bisexual women. Qual Res Psychol. 2015;12(2):91–106.

Henderson R, Simmons DS, Bourke L, Muir J. Development of guidelines for non-indigenous people undertaking research among the indigenous population of north-east Victoria. Med J Aust. 2002;176(10):482–5.

Hibberd S. Involving children and their parents in research design. Arch Dis Child. 2016;101(9):e2–e2.

Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB. Designing clinical research. An epidemiological approach. 2nd ed. London: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.

Jancey J, Howat P, Lee A, Clarke A, Shilton T, Fisher J, Iredell H. Effective recruitment and retention of older adults in physical activity research: PALS study. Am J Health Behav. 2006;30(6):626–35.

Johnson M, George A, Dahlen H, Ajwani S, Bhole S, Blinkhorn A, … Yeo A. The midwifery initiated oral health-dental service protocol: an intervention to improve oral health outcomes for pregnant women. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15(2):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-15-2 .

Join Dementia Research. 2017. Retrieved 23 Nov 2017, from https://www.joindementiaresearch.nihr.ac.uk/

Joseph R, Keller C, Ainsworth B. Recruiting participants into pilot trials: techniques for researchers with shoestring budgets. Californian J Health Promot. 2016;14(2):81–9.

Lee GE, Ow M, Lie D, Dent R. Barriers and facilitators for clinical trial participation among diverse Asian patients with breast cancer: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health. 2016;16(43):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-016-0319-1 .

Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. London: SAGE Publications; 2007.

Liamputtong P. Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.

Liamputtong P. The science of words and the science of number. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Research methods in health: foundations of evidence-based practice. 3rd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 3–27.

Liljas AE, Jovicic A, Kharicha K, Iliffe S, Manthorpe J, Goodman C, Walters K. Facilitators and barriers for recruiting and engaging hard-to-reach older people to health promotion interventions and related research: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015;386:S51.

Manohar N, Liamputtong P, Bhole S, Arora A. Researcher positionality in cross-cultural and sensitive research. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2017. p. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_35-1 .

Mapstone J, Elbourne D, Roberts I. Strategies to improve recruitment to research studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000013.

Martinson BE, Hindman DB. Building a health promotion agenda in local newspapers. Health Educ Res. 2005;20(1):51–60.

Maxwell AE, Bastani R, Vida P, Warda US. Strategies to recruit and retain older Filipino–american immigrants for a cancer screening study. J Community Health. 2005;30(3):167–79.

McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, … Roberts I. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7(9):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-7-9 .

McMurdo ME, Roberts H, Parker S, Wyatt N, May H, Goodman C, … Ali K. Improving recruitment of older people to research through good practice. Age Ageing. 2011;40(6):659–65.

Mishna F, Muskat B, Cook C. Anticipating challenges: school-based social work intervention research. Child Sch. 2012;34(3):135–44.

Musiat P, Winsall M, Orlowski S, Antezana G, Schrader G, Battersby M, Bidargaddi N. Paid and unpaid online recruitment for health interventions in young adults. J Adolesc Health: Off Publ Soc Adolesc Med. 2016;59(6):662–7.

National Health and Medical Research Council. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: NHMRC; 2015.

National Institute of Ageing. Recruiting older adults into research (ROAR) toolkit overview and user guide. 2015. Retrieved 23 Nov 2017, from https://www.nia.nih.gov/sites/default/files/d7/roar_user_guide.pdf

Ngune I, Jiwa M, Dadich A, Lotriet J, Sriram D. Effective recruitment strategies in primary care research: a systematic review. Qual Prim Care. 2012;20(2):115–23.

Owen-Smith AA, Woodyatt C, Sineath RC, Hunkeler EM, Barnwell LT, Graham A, … Goodman M. Perceptions of barriers to and facilitators of participation in health research among transgender people. Transgender Health. 2016;1(1):187–96.

Patel MX, Doku V, Tennakoon L. Challenges in recruitment of research participants. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2003;9(3):229–38. https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.9.3.229 .

Quay T, Frimer L, Janssen P, Lamers Y. Barriers and facilitators to recruitment of South Asians to health research: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(5):e014889.

Ramsden I. Cultural safety and nursing education in Aotearoa and Te Waipounamu. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington; 2002.

ResearchMatch. 2017. Retrieved 23 Nov 2017, from https://www.researchmatch.org/

Robinson KA, Dinglas VD, Sukrithan V, Yalamanchilli R, Mendez-Tellez PA, Dennison-Himmelfarb C, et al. Updated systematic review identifies substantial number of retention strategies: using more strategies retains more study participants. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1481–7.

Rodriguez LL, Hanna KE, Federman DD. The participant-investigator interface. In: Rodriguez LL, Hanna KE, Federman DD, editors. Responsible research: a systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. p. 108–35.

Santoyo-Olsson J, Cabrera J, Freyre R, Grossman M, Alvarez N, Mathur D, … Stewart AL. An innovative multiphased strategy to recruit underserved adults into a randomized trial of a community-based diabetes risk reduction program. Gerontologist. 2011;51(suppl_1):S82–93.

Satar MMA, Abdel-Raouf O, Baset MA, El-henawy I. Altruism as a tool for optimization: literature review. Int J Eng Trends Technol. 2015;22(6):270–5.

Sengupta S, Strauss R, DeVellis R, Quinn S, DeVellis B, Ware W. Factors affecting African-American participation in AIDS research. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2000;24(3):275–84.

Simmons D, Voyle JA. Reaching hard-to-reach, high-risk populations: piloting a health promotion and diabetes disease prevention programme on an urban marae in New Zealand. Health Promot Int. 2003;18(1):41–50.

Stein MA, Shaffer M, Echo-Hawk A, Smith J, Stapleton A, Melvin A. Research START: a multimethod study of barriers and accelerators of recruiting research participants. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8(6):647–54.

Trialfacts. 2017. Retrieved 23 Nov 2017, from https://trialfacts.com/

UCL Research Ethics Committee. Guidance note 1: research involving children. 2016. Retrieved 23 Nov 2017, from https://ethics.grad.ucl.ac.uk/forms/guidance1.pdf

Voyle J, Simmons D. Community development through partnership: promoting health in an urban indigenous community in New Zealand. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(8):1035–50.

Walsh R. Helping or hurting: are adolescent intervention programs minimizing racial inequality? Educ Urban Soc. 2011;43(3):370–95.

Welton A, Vickers M, Cooper J, Meade T, Marteau T. Is recruitment more difficult with a placebo arm in randomised controlled trials? A quasirandomised, interview based study. Br Med J. 1999;318(7191):1114–7.

World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(4):373–4.

Wyatt SB, Diekelmann N, Henderson F, Andrew ME, Billingsley G, Felder SH, Fuqua S. A community-driven model of research participation: the Jackson Heart Study Participant Recruitment and Retention Study. Ethn Dis. 2003;13(4):438–55.

Wyke S, Hunt K, Gray CM, Fenwick E, Bunn C, Donnan PT, … Boyer N. Football Fans in Training (FFIT): a randomised controlled trial of a gender-sensitised weight loss and healthy living programme for men–end of study report. Public Health Res. 2015;3(2):1–129.

Younger Onset Dementia Support Group. 2017. Retrieved 23 Nov 2017, from https://www.facebook.com/YoungOnsetDementiaSupportGroup

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

Narendar Manohar & Amit Arora

School of Science and Health and Translational Health Research Institute (THRI), Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

Freya MacMillan

NICM and Translational Health Research Institute (THRI), Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

Genevieve Z. Steiner

Oral Health Services and Sydney Dental Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, Sydney Medical School, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Collaboration for Oral Health Outcomes Research, Translation, and Evaluation (COHORTE) Research Group, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Narendar Manohar .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Health, Locked Bag 1797, CA.02.35, Western Sydney Univ, School of Science & Health, Locked Bag 1797, CA.02.35, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia

Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Manohar, N., MacMillan, F., Z. Steiner, G., Arora, A. (2018). Recruitment of Research Participants. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_75-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_75-1

Received : 19 December 2017

Accepted : 02 January 2018

Published : 24 January 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-2779-6

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-2779-6

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research