A methodological study investigating factors influencing the recruitment and attrition of participants in palliative care research.

International journal of palliative nursing Pub Date : 2026-08-02 Epub Date: 2026-08-19 DOI:10.12968/ijpn.2025.0093
Sofie Fournais Guld, Gitte Mølgård Hansen, Anette Torvin Møller, Emma Helledie, Monica Cekala, Brita Jørgensen, Mette Asbjoern Neergaard
{"title":"A methodological study investigating factors influencing the recruitment and attrition of participants in palliative care research.","authors":"Sofie Fournais Guld, Gitte Mølgård Hansen, Anette Torvin Møller, Emma Helledie, Monica Cekala, Brita Jørgensen, Mette Asbjoern Neergaard","doi":"10.12968/ijpn.2025.0093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical palliative care research is challenging because of low recruitment and high attrition rates, although clinical research is much needed to improve the care provided.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To identify key barriers for recruitment and main reasons for attrition in palliative care research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This methodological study was based on Danish participation in an international questionnaire study. All patients referred to the specialist palliative care teams at two hospitals between August 2022 and November 2023 were screened for eligibility. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Of the 681 patients screened, 236 (34.7%) were eligible for inclusion, and 59 (25.0% of eligible patients) completed the study. The most commonly reported reason for non-inclusion was physical frailty (15.3%). Eligible and ineligible patients differed significantly with respect to diagnosis and median survival, which was 75 days among eligible patients compared with 45 days among ineligible patients. No attrition occurred after enrolment, likely reflecting a restrictive inclusion practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Systematic screening and direct clinical assessment may support more effective recruitment and help reduce gatekeeping in palliative care research.</p><p><strong>Implications for practice: </strong>Researchers and clinicians should adopt systematic and transparent recruitment processes, minimise unnecessary exclusion criteria and use clinically informed assessments of eligibility to reduce gatekeeping. Using less burdensome data collection methods may improve recruitment, enhance participant retention and increase the inclusivity and quality of palliative care research.</p>","PeriodicalId":94055,"journal":{"name":"International journal of palliative nursing","volume":"32 8","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of palliative nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/ijpn.2025.0093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical palliative care research is challenging because of low recruitment and high attrition rates, although clinical research is much needed to improve the care provided.

Aims: To identify key barriers for recruitment and main reasons for attrition in palliative care research.

Methods: This methodological study was based on Danish participation in an international questionnaire study. All patients referred to the specialist palliative care teams at two hospitals between August 2022 and November 2023 were screened for eligibility. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

Findings: Of the 681 patients screened, 236 (34.7%) were eligible for inclusion, and 59 (25.0% of eligible patients) completed the study. The most commonly reported reason for non-inclusion was physical frailty (15.3%). Eligible and ineligible patients differed significantly with respect to diagnosis and median survival, which was 75 days among eligible patients compared with 45 days among ineligible patients. No attrition occurred after enrolment, likely reflecting a restrictive inclusion practice.

Conclusions: Systematic screening and direct clinical assessment may support more effective recruitment and help reduce gatekeeping in palliative care research.

Implications for practice: Researchers and clinicians should adopt systematic and transparent recruitment processes, minimise unnecessary exclusion criteria and use clinically informed assessments of eligibility to reduce gatekeeping. Using less burdensome data collection methods may improve recruitment, enhance participant retention and increase the inclusivity and quality of palliative care research.

一项方法学研究调查了影响缓和治疗研究参与者招募和流失的因素。
背景:临床姑息治疗研究是具有挑战性的,因为低招募和高损耗率,尽管临床研究是非常需要改善所提供的护理。目的:确定缓和医疗研究人员招募的主要障碍和人员流失的主要原因。方法:本方法学研究基于丹麦参与的一项国际问卷研究。2022年8月至2023年11月期间转诊到两家医院的专科姑息治疗小组的所有患者都进行了资格筛选。数据分析采用描述性统计。结果:在筛选的681例患者中,236例(34.7%)符合纳入条件,59例(25.0%)完成了研究。最常见的未入选原因是身体虚弱(15.3%)。符合条件和不符合条件的患者在诊断和中位生存期方面存在显著差异,符合条件的患者为75天,而不符合条件的患者为45天。入组后未发生人员流失,可能反映了限制性纳入实践。结论:系统的筛选和直接的临床评估可以支持更有效的招募,并有助于减少缓和治疗研究中的守门行为。对实践的影响:研究人员和临床医生应该采用系统和透明的招聘过程,尽量减少不必要的排除标准,并使用临床知情的资格评估来减少把关。使用较少繁琐的数据收集方法可以改善招募,增强参与者保留,增加姑息治疗研究的包容性和质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书