Skip to main content

Table 3 Evaluation workshop meeting characteristics

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

  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 attendancea 54 41 N/Ad 341
Workshop attendance 10 (19%) 13 (32%) 9 (10%) 35 (10%)
Percent attendees non-academicb 35% 32% 67% 5%
Behavioral intent to adopt 10 c 9 14
  1. CME continuing medical education, N/A not applicable, PR Public relations
  2. aMeeting attendance includes urologists and non-physician attendees
  3. bProportion calculated on rostered attendees where data available
  4. cNot offered opportunity to adopt due to capacity limitations
  5. dData not available from Louisiana Urological Society; proportion attendance conservatively based on number of urologists invited