Recruitment of physician offices for an office‐based adolescent smoking cessation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physician office settings play an important role in tobacco cessation intervention. However, few tobacco cessation trials are conducted at these sites, in part because of the many challenges associated with recruiting community physician offices into research. The present study identified and implemented strategies for recruiting physician offices into a randomized clinical trial of tobacco screening and cessation interventions with adolescent patients. A total of 30 community physicians participated in focus groups to elicit their perceptions of facilitators of and barriers to initial engagement of physician practices and the subsequent enrollment of the practices in long-term research projects. Physicians identified facilitators such as (a) the involvement of office staff in the recruitment process and (b) on-site presentations of the study's background and aims. Some of the barriers identified were time commitment concerns and the lack of incentives in exchange for participation. These focus group findings were then integrated with theory-based and empirically driven recruitment strategies for a 12-month randomized tobacco intervention trial with adolescent patients. Of 185 office practices approached to participate (screened from a pool of 273 practices), 103 agreed to on-site presentations of the study. Subsequently, almost all of the practices (101) that received the presentation agreed to enroll in the study. Conclusions are that (a) recruitment is a multicomponent process, (b) the processes of communication, engagement, and enrollment must be carefully planned and implemented to achieve maximal results, and (c) the development of effective strategies for recruiting health care provider practices presents an important infrastructure for testing adolescent smoking cessation interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".