Recruitment to qualitative research is an important methodological consideration. However, the process of recruitment is under-communicated in qualitative research articles and methods textbooks. A robust recruitment plan enhances trustworthiness and overall research success. Although recruitment has recently received increased attention in the qualitative methodology literature, a more nuanced understanding is required. We realized successful recruitment to our focused ethnographic inquiry. Numerous nurse educators, researchers, and administrators volunteered within three months of study initiation. Using Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle, we conducted a critical reflection on the recruitment log and participant interview data to surface factors contributing to our success. This article offers our insights into the facilitators of successful recruitment. Our reflection revealed four themes contributing to successful enrollment: (a) laying the groundwork, (b) recruitment plan, (c) building rapport, and (d) participant motivations. Two new recruitment strategies accounted for over 60% of our sample. Reporting on successful strategies for recruiting participants to qualitative research and specifying participants’ motivations to volunteer, from their perspective, make important contributions to the recruitment literature. Our article offers guidance to qualitative researchers pursuing successful recruitment. Additional research is required to evaluate the relative influence of various recruitment strategies.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/16094069221119576

Successful Recruitment to Qualitative Research: A Critical Reflection

The past decade has witnessed a proliferation of big team science (BTS), endeavours where a comparatively large number of researchers pool their intellectual and/or material resources in pursuit of a common goal. Despite this burgeoning interest, there exists little guidance on how to create, manage and participate in these collaborations. In this paper, we integrate insights from a multi-disciplinary set of BTS initiatives to provide a how-to guide for BTS. We first discuss initial considerations for launching a BTS project, such as building the team, identifying leadership, governance, tools and open science approaches. We then turn to issues related to running and completing a BTS project, such as study design, ethical approvals and issues related to data collection, management and analysis. Finally, we address topics that present special challenges for BTS, including authorship decisions, collaborative writing and team decision-making.

How to build up big team science: a practical guide for large-scale collaborations

A shift from single to multi-site health studies enabled a range of research benefits including faster recruitment of larger and more diverse samples; increased statistical power, greater rigour, generalisability, and external reliability; and increased likelihood of impacting policy and clinical practice. However, ethical review of multi-site studies by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) raises specific challenges compared with single site studies, with requirements to apply to multiple local IRBs increasing the burden on research, possibly endangering the integrity of the research process or inhibiting development of multi-site studies. The option of a single centralised IRB may offer a clearer, more consistent and efficient review process. This study presents a case report and commentary from 15 years engaging with IRBs in multiple sites in Ireland by the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). It examines the ethics review process for IDS-TILDA through its first four waves. While the majority of 48 IRBs granted ethical approval within 13 weeks, six IRBs took 21–47 weeks to approve, leading to delays in data collection of up to 11 months. Despite additional review time, no changes were required to the study protocol. Therefore, a critical impact of the process was the delay in starting data collection within a small number of organisations, and reduced involvement in the study for one organisation. The ethical review process with multiple IRBs increased the degree of complexity of the process, with added bureaucracy and far greater communication required across 48 IRBs, substantially adding to the resource commitment for the review process. The relatively quick approval from the majority of IRBs was partially a result of the longitudinal study building relationships with organisations throughout multiple waves. That other health studies may not accrue this benefit supports calls for a single IRB system for multi-site health studies.

IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA)

The past decade has witnessed a proliferation of Big Team Science (BTS), endeavours where a comparatively large number of researchers pool their intellectual and/or material resources in pursuit of a common goal. Despite this burgeoning interest, there exists little guidance on how to create, manage, and participate in these collaborations. In this paper, we integrate insights from a multidisciplinary set of BTS initiatives to provide a how-to guide for BTS. We first discuss initial considerations for launching a BTS project, such as building the team, identifying leadership, governance, tools, and open science approaches. We then turn to issues related to running and completing a BTS project, such as study design, ethical approvals, and issues related to data collection, management, and analysis. Finally, we address topics that present special challenges for BTS, including authorship decisions, collaborative writing, and team decision making. 

How to build up big team science: A practical guide for large-scale collaborations

Teaching Excellence Symposium, 29-30 June 2023

Multi-site research studies are essential if we are to conduct national research across all Australian jurisdictions. There is widespread agreement among clinicians and researchers that obtaining essential approvals to conduct multi-site research studies in Australia can be complex, bureaucratic and time consuming. Although there is inherent value in the review process, resources and months of valuable research time are often expended long before the study has begun. Using our recent experience for a multi-site, longitudinal paediatric cohort study of children and adolescents who were detained in offshore immigration detention on Nauru, we describe the process of navigating the ethics and governance approval systems. We identify tips for researchers and clinicians conducting multi-site studies, including early consultation with ethics and governance committees, using their recommended templates, anticipating time delays, and commencing time consuming processes as early as permissible. Our recommendations at the systemic level include streamlined and integrated ethics and governance review processes for all Australian jurisdictions, with co-ordinated requests for further information, a standardised approach across all Research Governance Offices, a rapid system for addressing amendments and individualised study support and consultations. Above all, a nationally agreed framework whereby ethics and governance committees across jurisdictions communicate with each other, use the same electronic platform and present a unified process whilst protecting the welfare, rights, dignity and safety of research participants is required. The complexity of the current ethics and governance processes may inadvertently and unintentionally be a barrier to conducting ethical research.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jpc.15747

Ethics and governance for a multi-site study in Australia: Navigating the snakes and ladders

OBJECTIVES
To examine the changing health needs of refugee children and young people (CYP) entering Australia, in relation to key government policy changes.


STUDY DESIGN
Retrospective analysis of health service use data over 11 years.


SETTING
Paediatric refugee clinics in South Western Sydney (SWS), the Australian region with the largest annual resettlement of refugees.


PARTICIPANTS
Refugee CYP (≤25 years) attending the SWS paediatric refugee clinics for their first visit between 2009 and 2019.


MEASURES
Clinician defined health conditions categorised as communicable and non-communicable disease (NCD).


RESULTS
Data were analysed for 359 CYP, mean age 9.3 years; 212 male (59.1%). Most CYP (n=331, 92.2%) had health problems identified; 292 (81.3%) had ≥1 NCD and 24 (6.7%) had ≥1 communicable disease. The most frequent individual NCDs were dental disease (n=128, 35.7%) and vitamin D deficiency (n=72, 20.1%). Trend analysis showed increased odds of identifying an NCD from 2013 onwards (crude OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.96). Neurodevelopmental problems, especially Global Developmental Delay (n=31, 8.6%), emerged as more prevalent issues in the latter half of the decade. There were significantly increased odds of identifying a neurodevelopmental problem in 2016-2019, especially in 2016-2017 (adjusted OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.34 to 6.40). Key policy changes during this period included acceptance of refugees with disabilities from 2012, additional Australian Humanitarian Programme intake from the Eastern Mediterranean region and mandatory offshore processing for those seeking asylum by boat from 2013. In response to the changing needs, local health services adopted nurse-led primary healthcare screening, early childhood services, youth and disability clinics.


CONCLUSIONS
Refugee CYP in Australia are presenting with a growing burden of NCDs, with neurodevelopmental problems contributing. Government policy changes affect the sociodemographics of resettled populations, influencing health profiles. Paediatric refugee health services need to be responsive to the changing needs of these populations to optimise well-being.

Changing landscape of paediatric refugee health in South Western Sydney, Australia: a retrospective observational study.

Objective To describe the health and well-being of children and young people (CYP) seeking asylum subjected to Australia’s immigration policy of indefinite mandatory detention on Nauru. Design Cross-sectional analysis of a cohort of CYP seeking asylum. Setting Australian paediatric clinicians from 10 health services completed detailed health assessments around the time of transfer from Nauru, mostly to Australia. Participants Sixty-two CYP who were ≤18 years on entry into offshore immigration detention on Nauru between 2013 and 2019. Mean age at health assessment was 9 years. Main measures Health outcomes were categorised as physical, mental or neurodevelopmental concerns/conditions. Risk and protective factor data were collected using the adverse childhood experiences and refugee-specific adverse childhood experiences tools. Results Over half of the CYP (n=32, 52%) were held on Nauru for ≥4 years. The vast majority of CYP had physical health (n=55, 89%) and mental health (n=49, 79%) concerns including self-harm or suicidal ideation/attempt (n=28, 45%). Mental health concerns were more likely in CYP who were school-aged (p=0.001), had been held on Nauru for ≥1 year (p=0.01); originated from the Eastern Mediterranean region (p<0.05); witnessed trauma (p<0.05) or had exposure to ≥4 refugee-specific adverse childhood experiences (p<0.05). Neurodevelopmental concerns were seen in eight children (13%). Conclusions This study highlights the almost universal physical and mental health difficulties in a sample of CYP who experienced forced migration and were subjected to Australia’s offshore immigration detention policy. Immigration detention in recipient countries, a known adverse childhood experience, may contribute to or exacerbate harmful outcomes in CYP seeking asylum.

Offshore detention: cross-sectional analysis of the health of children and young people seeking asylum in Australia

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Lahiru Amarasena

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Ethics and governance for a multi-site study in Australia: Navigating the snakes and ladders

Changing landscape of paediatric refugee health in South Western Sydney, Australia: a retrospective observational study.

Offshore detention: cross-sectional analysis of the health of children and young people seeking asylum in Australia