Background We conducted research on the diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections in general practices in the Northern Dutch-German cross-border region. We encountered various challenges including prolonged formal ethical and legal processes, data collection, and recruitment of both general practitioners (GPs) and patients. Aim To provide recommendations for those in the early stages of planning and conducting research in general practices. Design & setting Opinion paper based on experience conducting a cross-border prospective study. Method We present an overview of the strategies employed to collect data and recruit participants, along with their respective advantages and disadvantages. Results We recruited GPs by post, email, and newsletters with varying success rates depending on the region. Overall, personal approaches fared better, leading to increased willingness to participate in the study. We used two distinct measures to collect data: students in the Netherlands and practice assistants in Germany. While utilising student assistants alleviated the constraints associated with study participation for a general practice, their limited availability disrupted the continuity of data collection phases. Instructing practice assistants to collect data independently enhanced flexibility regarding patient recruitment, but our experience revealed that this approach was more prone to errors, likely due to heavy workloads. Designating a contact person within the practice facilitated communication between the practice and the researchers, providing reminders for the ongoing study recruitment. Conclusion With research in general practice becoming increasingly important, it is necessary to illustrate its barriers and facilitators. Data collection strategies have to be carefully assessed and selected according to the specific needs of practices (eg, flexibility, time constraints) to mitigate disruption of regular care.
Bedri et al. (Fri,) studied this question.