Observational analysis shows increased clinician participation using asynchronous online focus groups, suggesting a new recruitment approach.
Objective: Due to an increase in healthcare quality research and QI projects, there is a high demand for clinician time to serve as research participants. Traditional focus group methods are time demanding, posing a barrier to collect data from busy clinicians. We show that asynchronous online focus groups (AOFGs) are a viable method for increasing participation from busy clinicians. Materials and Methods: Recruitment metrics were computed by counting the number of enrollees and sites of provenance during the period when traditional focus groups and AOFGs were offered, respectively. Then, using Microsoft Teams, private channels served as forums for primary care staff at Veterans Health Administration to share their experiences as part of two healthcare projects. Results: 82 primary care staff from 17 VA sites individually participated. Pivoting to AOFGs helped increase acceptance rates by 429% and 116% in each respective project. Offering AOFGs helped decrease non-response rates across both projects by 35% and 16.34% on both projects. Notably, Care Managers (RNs) were the most well-represented, constituting nearly 40% of participants on each project. Discussion: This paper explores metrics that can be tracked and measured for future research. AOFGs replace the coordination work of gathering participants in one place in real time with the protracted coordination work of keeping participants engaged. AOFGs thus require consistent communication between recruiters and participants as well as active moderation to sustain engagement. Conclusions: By providing a flexible alternative that accommodates the unpredictable demands clinicians face in primary care, AOFGs help address the barrier of time demand and increase participation in quality improvement and healthcare research projects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Venegas et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: