Development, acceptability, appropriateness and appeal of a cancer clinical trials implementation intervention for rural- and minority-serving urology practices

Table 3 Evaluation workshop meeting characteristics

	Site A	Site B	Site C	Site D
Organizational sponsor scope	State	State	State	Regional
Meeting scope	1 state	2 states	1 state	8 US states, Mexico + Central America
Placement on meeting agenda	Breakout	Plenary	No	Breakout
Workshop location	On-site	On-site	Off-site	On-site
Recruitment strategy	Letter	Letter	Letter	Program + meeting PR
Number urologists invited	104	0	84	2189
Incentive	US$50	US$50	US$50	CME Credit
Total meeting attendance^a	54	41	N/A^d	341
Workshop attendance	10 (19%)	13 (32%)	9 (10%)	35 (10%)
Percent attendees non-academic^b	35%	32%	67%	5%
Behavioral intent to adopt	10	–^c	9	14

CME continuing medical education, N/A not applicable, PR Public relations
^aMeeting attendance includes urologists and non-physician attendees
^bProportion calculated on rostered attendees where data available
^cNot offered opportunity to adopt due to capacity limitations
^dData not available from Louisiana Urological Society; proportion attendance conservatively based on number of urologists invited

ISSN: 1745-6215