Evaluation of recruitment methods and promotional strategies for sexual health services and research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recruitment of diverse participant cohorts has been a long-standing challenge in clinical and health care system research. Diversity is necessary to gain representation of underserved demographics and further our understanding of how to address health inequities and systemic barriers. OBJECTIVES: Identify facilitators and barriers to access and uptake of pharmacist-led sexually transmitted infection (STI) health care services, evaluate recruitment strategies and identify facilitators and barriers associated with recruitment/promotional strategies, and determine strategies to improve reach of promotion and recruitment strategies to underserved communities to improve equity in pharmacy-based STI services. METHODS: This was a qualitative evaluation case study using in-depth semi structured interviews with pharmacists engaged in pharmacy practice research and community advocacy representatives. Interviews were inductively coded and underwent thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five themes were identified which encompass facilitators and barriers to uptake of pharmacy-based sexual health services by underrepresented communities: convenience, misunderstandings, historical harm and past experiences, current forms of systemic oppression, perceptions and fears. Four themes were identified which encompass facilitators and barriers for the effectiveness of recruitment strategies employed by pharmacy practice research: type of recruitment strategy, service type and its perceived benefits/relevance, awareness of service options, difficulties requesting a service. Four themes were identified encompassing strategies for increasing reach of underserved communities in future to improve equity in pharmacy-based STI services: multipronged approaches, accessible promotional material and recruitment strategies, collaboration, dismantling of systemic oppression. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted strategies to improve the reach of pharmacist provided STI services and recruit diverse participants to health research and promote the uptake of pharmacist provided STI services by underserved groups in future.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.453 | 0.389 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.009 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".