IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0234783.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recruiters' perspectives of recruiting women during pregnancy and childbirth to clinical trials: A qualitative evidence synthesis

Author

Listed:
  • Vivienne Hanrahan
  • Katie Gillies
  • Linda Biesty

Abstract

Introduction: Research on research is key to enhancing efficacy in trial methodology. Clinical trials involving women during pregnancy and childbirth are limited, with a paucity of data guiding evidence-based practice. Following a prioritisation exercise that highlighted the top-ten unanswered recruitment questions, this qualitative evidence synthesis was designed specifically to focus on the barriers and enablers for clinicians/healthcare professionals in helping conduct randomised trials within the context of recruitment during pregnancy and childbirth. Methods: The synthesis was undertaken using Thomas and Harden’s three stage thematic synthesis method and reported following the ENTREQ guidelines. Using a pre-determined SPIDER strategy, we conducted a comprehensive search of databases; Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and grey searches for records until January 2019. We included all reports of qualitative data on recruiter’s experiences, perceptions, views of recruiting women during pregnancy and childbirth to clinical trials. Altogether 13,401 records were screened, resulting in 31 full-text reviews, of which five were eligible for inclusion. Quality was appraised using CASP. Data were extracted onto a specifically defined form. We used thematic synthesis to identify descriptive and analytical themes, and to interpret and generate theory. Confidence was assessed using GRADE-CERQual. The review protocol is publicly available (OSF https://osf.io/g4dt9/). Results: Five papers (representing four individual studies) from two different countries were included. All studies focused on the experiences of trial recruiters in the maternity setting. We identified four analytical themes; Recruitment through a clinician’s lens, Recruiters judgement on acceptability, From protocol to recruiters lived experience, Framing recruitment in context. These were linked by an overarching theme combining beliefs and power. Conclusion: The overarching theme combining beliefs and power links the experiences and perceptions of recruiters. This synthesis shows a gap between the trial design study protocol and the recruiter’s lived experience. Strategies such as collaborative trial design, mitigating gatekeeping behaviours, and training may support recruiters in their endeavour.

Suggested Citation

  • Vivienne Hanrahan & Katie Gillies & Linda Biesty, 2020. "Recruiters' perspectives of recruiting women during pregnancy and childbirth to clinical trials: A qualitative evidence synthesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-25, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234783
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234783
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234783
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234783&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0234783?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Dyson & Sue Dyson, 2014. "The Politics of Health Services Research: Health Professionals as Hired Hands in a Commissioned Research Project in England," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 19(3), pages 118-128, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234783. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.