Recruiting Hard-to-Reach Subjects for Exercise Interventions: A Multi-Centre and Multi-Stage Approach Targeting General Practitioners and Their Community-Dwelling and Mobility-Limited Patients

Michael Brach, Anna Moschny, Bettina Bücker, Renate Klaaßen-Mielke, Matthias Trampisch, Stefan Wilm, Petra Platen and Timo Hinrichs
Additional contact information
Anna Moschny: Department of Sports Medicine and Sports Nutrition, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany
Bettina Bücker: Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, 58448 Witten, Germany
Renate Klaaßen-Mielke: Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiolgy, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany
Matthias Trampisch: Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiolgy, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany
Stefan Wilm: Institute of General Practice, Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany
Petra Platen: Department of Sports Medicine and Sports Nutrition, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany
Timo Hinrichs: Department of Sports Medicine and Sports Nutrition, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany

IJERPH, 2013, vol. 10, issue 12, 1-19

Abstract: The general practitioner (GP)’s practice appears to be an ideal venue for recruiting community-dwelling older adults with limited mobility. This study (Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17727272) aimed at evaluating the recruiting process used for a multi-centre exercise intervention (HOMEfit). Each of six steps resulted in an absolute number of patients (N1–N6). Sex and age (for N4–N6) and reasons for dropping out were assessed. Patient database screening (N1–N3) at 15 GP practices yielded N1 = 5,990 patients aged 70 and above who had visited their GP within the past 6 months, N2 = 5,467 after exclusion of institutionalised patients, N3 = 1,545 patients eligible. Using a pre-defined limitation algorithm in order to conserve the practices’ resources resulted in N4 = 1,214 patients (80.3 ± 5.6 years, 68% female), who were then officially invited to the final assessment of eligibility at the GP’s practice. N5 = 434 patients (79.5 ± 5.4 years, 69% female) attended the practice screening (n = 13 of whom had not received an official invitation). Finally, N6 = 209 (79.8 ± 5.2 years, 74% female) were randomised after they were judged eligible and had given their written informed consent to participate in the randomised controlled trial (overall recruitment rate: 4.4%). The general strategy of utilising a GP’s practice to recruit the target group proved beneficial. The data and experiences presented here can help planners of future exercise-intervention studies.

Keywords: general practitioner; recruitment; mobility limitation; exercise; older adults; selection bias (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/12/6611/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/12/6611/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:10:y:2013:i:12:p:6611-6629:d:30922

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().