Table 2 Comparisons by most efficient and lowest cost sites
Characteristic | By recruitment efficiency | By recruitment cost | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Most efficienta | Others | Lowest costa | Others | |
(n = 7) | (n = 18) | (n = 7) | (n = 18) | |
Site characteristics | ||||
 Practice size (total GP FTE), mean (SD) | 4.39 (2.21) | 7.31 (4.59) | 7.13 (4.05) | 6.24 (4.39) |
 Rural location | 2 (29%) | 2 (11%) | 2 (29%) | 2 (11%) |
 Socioeconomic indexb | ||||
  1/2 | 2 (29%) | 6 (33%) | 4 (57%) | 4 (22%) |
  3 | 4 (57%) | 3 (17%) | 1 (14%) | 6 (33%) |
  4/5 | 1 (14%) | 9 (50%) | 2 (29%) | 8 (44%) |
Clinical audit tools | ||||
 ≥ 2 tools available | 2 (29%) | 1 (6%) | 1 (14%) | 2 (11%) |
 Training to use tools | 7 (100%) | 14 (82%) | 7 (100%) | 14 (82%) |
Research culture | ||||
 Concurrently involved in other studies | 5 (71%) | 10 (56%) | 5 (71%) | 10 (56%) |
 If other studies were also diabetes-related | 1 (20%) | 5 (50%) | 2 (40%) | 4 (40%) |
 Involved in ≥ 2 studies in last 3 years | 4 (57%) | 11 (61%) | 7 (100%) | 8 (44%) |
Site support | ||||
 Nurse/administrative support (very high/high) | 7 (100%) | 14 (78%) | 7 (100%) | 14 (78%) |
 GP support (very high/high) | 7 (100%) | 14 (78%) | 6 (86%) | 15 (83%) |
Recruitment support | ||||
 Access to eligibility information (very easy/easy) | 7 (100%) | 15 (83%) | 7 (100%) | 15 (83%) |
 Medical staff (practice nurse/GP) responsible for identifying potential patients | 4 (57%) | 4 (22%) | 2 (29%) | 6 (33%) |
 Practice nurse coordinate contacting patients | 6 (86%) | 9 (50%) | 5 (71%) | 10 (56%) |
Study coordinator’s perspective on recruitment | ||||
 Very easy/easy | 6 (86%) | 11 (61%) | 7 (100%) | 10 (56%) |
 Manageable | 1 (14%) | 2 (11%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (17%) |
 Difficult/very difficult | 0 (0%) | 5 (28%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (28%) |