BJGP open · 2026
Recruitment and participation of general practices in research networks: quantitative evaluation of the first joint study in six German practice-based research networks.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pentzek Michael, Löscher Susanne, Voigt Karen, Piller Steve, Döpfmer Susanne, Kretzschmann Christian, Mergenthal Karola, Polanc Andreas, Lepper Ann-Kathrin, Hohmann Elena D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Recruiting general practices for research is challenging. Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) may improve participation, but little is known about how newly established PBRNs function operationally in multicentre studies.
AIM: To evaluate recruitment effort, participation, data completeness, and acceptability in the first joint study of six German PBRNs.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Multicentre cross-sectional feasibility study across 18 university sites in six German PBRNs.
METHOD: GPs completed an online REDCap survey covering practice characteristics, aggregated patient numbers manually extracted from practice management systems (PMS), and attitudes towards post-COVID/post-vaccination-related symptoms. Sites documented contacts, reminders, and time investment. A two-step cluster analysis characterised site-level recruitment strategies, and a generalised linear mixed model examined predictors of data completeness.
RESULTS: Of 906 contacted GPs, 156 participated (17.2%); 69 (7.6%) provided near-complete datasets (≥90% item response). Recruitment required 134 staff-hours overall, equivalent to about 2 hours and 13 contacted GPs per near-complete dataset, and varied substantially between sites. Two recruitment clusters emerged: an email-oriented, low-effort strategy that recruited more practices overall, and a phone-intensive, high-effort strategy that achieved higher response rates but lower acceptability. Data completeness was lowest for PMS-derived patient data. Completeness varied by site, but not by PBRN or recruitment cluster, and was higher among younger and female GPs, in multi-doctor practices, and among those with prior research experience.
CONCLUSION: In this first joint German PBRN project, participation and data completeness were limited despite network affiliation. Site-level capability, practice research experience, and easier extraction of routine data appear crucial for future PBRN studies.
AIM: To evaluate recruitment effort, participation, data completeness, and acceptability in the first joint study of six German PBRNs.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Multicentre cross-sectional feasibility study across 18 university sites in six German PBRNs.
METHOD: GPs completed an online REDCap survey covering practice characteristics, aggregated patient numbers manually extracted from practice management systems (PMS), and attitudes towards post-COVID/post-vaccination-related symptoms. Sites documented contacts, reminders, and time investment. A two-step cluster analysis characterised site-level recruitment strategies, and a generalised linear mixed model examined predictors of data completeness.
RESULTS: Of 906 contacted GPs, 156 participated (17.2%); 69 (7.6%) provided near-complete datasets (≥90% item response). Recruitment required 134 staff-hours overall, equivalent to about 2 hours and 13 contacted GPs per near-complete dataset, and varied substantially between sites. Two recruitment clusters emerged: an email-oriented, low-effort strategy that recruited more practices overall, and a phone-intensive, high-effort strategy that achieved higher response rates but lower acceptability. Data completeness was lowest for PMS-derived patient data. Completeness varied by site, but not by PBRN or recruitment cluster, and was higher among younger and female GPs, in multi-doctor practices, and among those with prior research experience.
CONCLUSION: In this first joint German PBRN project, participation and data completeness were limited despite network affiliation. Site-level capability, practice research experience, and easier extraction of routine data appear crucial for future PBRN studies.