qualitative research recruitment plan

How to Recruit Participants for Qualitative Research (2022 Edition)

We explain best practices for recruiting participants for qualitative research that will help you save time and money.

Qualitative research, when executed correctly, explores and uncovers the emotional and cognitive motivations behind your target audience’s actions, behaviors, and opinions relative to your research objectives and goals. 

So, the success of a qualitative research project depends on engaging the “right” participants—highly qualified, fitting the profile, enthusiastic and articulate. But research participant recruitment can be a resource “suck”, devouring time and money that could be used for the actual research, analysis and report writing. Let’s explore how to recruit the best, most qualified participants while saving both time and money.

6 Steps to Recruiting Quality Participants

From defining the objectives of your project to clarifying the factors and qualities of the participants you’ll need to meet those objectives, to creating the questions for the initial screening survey and follow up conversational screener that will identify qualified participants to setting a motivating incentive, the steps to a successful qualitative research project can be a lot. Let’s break it all down. 

1. Hold a Stakeholder Meeting to Define Research Objectives

Before you begin the process to recruit participants for qualitative research , you need to define precisely what you're trying to achieve with the research. This information will be useful when crafting your screener questions, securing participants that fit the profile and even setting the incentive amount. 

If you collaborate with other teams on a research project, the critical first step is to hold a stakeholders’ meeting to determine research objectives and ensure all stakeholders agree on those objectives.

Asking the questions that concisely define the purpose of your research project will also provide the parameters for exactly who the study should focus on. This will become your participant profile.

5 Sample Questions for a Stakeholder’s Meeting

• What’s the objective of this project e.g., what do you want to learn?
• What audience has the demographics, background, education, experience, skill, information you need to meet those objectives?
• What do you already know in relation to the objectives?
• How will your organization use the results of the research/What will your organization do with the learnings?
• What are your concerns, if any, regarding this project? How will those concerns be met and managed?

Once you have the answers to these questions, you can move on to the next step. 

2. Develop and Fine Tune Screener Survey Questions 

Your screener survey allows you to cull potential participants quickly. This means the most important criteria for qualification/disqualification need to be at the beginning of the survey—both your non-negotiables (immediate disqualifiers) and your negotiables (subject-to-approval and/or less rigid disqualifiers). 

In most cases, non-negotiables are concrete questions related to demographics, such as a candidate’s business, location, age, gender, ethnicity and past research participation. However, screening questions can also be identifying behaviors and/or opinions. For example, if you're looking for marketing professionals that use a specific type of software, use of this software and even use of this software over a specified amount of time might be a must to qualify.

Leading questions with transparent choices for response should be avoided. This can be achieved by offering some options in multiple-choice response lists that will mis-direct unqualified potential participants. 

3. Assess For Articulateness and Enthusiasm in the Conversational Screen

When conducting a qualitative study, you are exploring the motivations behind behaviors and opinions . For example, if you're testing a website, you’re learning about participants’ journeys through the site and striving to understand what exactly drove their navigation choices. 

Participants that are articulate and outgoing enough to examine and explain the logical process and emotional triggers that caused them to choose one path over the other are a must. 

Finding these participants is one of the greatest challenges of a successful recruitment. Asking “Articulation Questions” that require time, thought and putting feelings into words, will help identify these participants. 

Sample Articulation Questions 

• Think about the last book you read. Describe it and how it made you feel. 
• What is your thought process when you go shopping for groceries? How does that differ for different types of foods?
• Describe the next vacation you want to take and why you want to go there. 

Note that Articulation Questions in no way relate to the research topic. They are questions anyone can answer and will determine whether a candidate is more likely to answer with thought, in detail and openly sharing emotions versus only responding with the bare minimum.

4. Consider Using Advanced Screening 

Speak directly with candidates : At  Respondent , we provide the ability to conduct unique and advanced screening. One feature allows you to speak directly with candidates. Speaking directly with candidates will help determine if a candidate can elaborate in their answers and offer the detail needed.

Avoid imposters : Because of the incentives offered for research participation, there are people who attempt to participate in any and all research projects whether they qualify or not. Some will create fake email accounts and lie in their screener responses to qualify. Having one of these imposters slip through and take the place of a qualified participant can skew research results. Respondent pre-vets candidates through their social media accounts and the requirement of having a valid business email. This guards against any posers slipping through. 

Participant Ratings : Another Respondent safeguard encourages researchers to rate participants. After a study, a survey is sent out to rate the effectiveness of each of your participants as:  

• Poor (did not meet expectations) 
• Good (met expectations) 
• Great (exceeded expectations)

For Respondent researchers, participant rating is a unique and an important element in the recruiting process. 

5. The Importance of Over-Recruiting

No matter how diligent you are in your recruiting, there will likely be no-shows. So, it's a good idea to always over-recruit. 

For focus groups it’s common practice to recruit two additional participants per group e.g., recruit 10 to seat 8 per group. If 9 or even 10 show up, it’s up to the moderator and client if all participants will be included in the focus group or not. Keep in mind that all participants who show up, whether they are asked to participate or not must be paid their incentive. 

For I-D-Is (one-on-one interviews), recruit several back-up participants that can be contacted and scheduled to replace any no-shows. Again, it’s up to the moderator and client if all who have been recruited will be interviewed or not. 

Respondent makes no-show and replacement management easy. If you have an I-D-I participant that doesn't show up, mark them as "no-show." Respondent will immediately contact you, asking if you want us to identify a replacement from your previously vetted participant pool. The replacement participant will be scheduled as a make up for your no-show. Respondent will not charge for the recruiting of no-shows.

6. Offer Fair & Quick Compensation 

Determining what type and the amount of the incentive for participants can be a challenge.  The amount needs to be motivating for participants to first agree to participate and then to actually show-up. The amount offered must also fit within the research budget. This can be a balancing act. 

Typically, the longer a participant is needed, the larger your incentive needs to be. Additionally, the location of the study must be considered. Higher compensation will be necessary for an in-person study versus a remote one. 

Individuals in certain professions and at higher income levels will not be as motivated by an incentive. Larger incentives must be offered to these participants for both a timely and successful recruit and to encourage their attendance.

Respondent handles the payment of participant incentives which can be a hassle and time-consuming. Simply indicate that a participant has shown up and participated and Respondent takes care of payment. 

Recruiting Made Quick and Easy with Respondent

Following the steps to have a successful recruit which leads to a successful project traditionally has been difficult, time consuming and costly. Respondent offers solutions that streamlines and accelerates the process while providing the highest quality participants you can be confident in and all this at reasonable costs. Give Respondent a try.

Recommend Resources:

• The Best UX Research Tools of 2022
• 10 Smart Tips for Conducting Better User Interviews
• 50 Powerful Questions You Should Ask In Your Next User Interview

How To Present Your User Research Findings

• Qualitative Research Questions: Gain Powerful Insights + 25 Examples

10 Powerful Respondent Features You Should Know About

We have 10 powerful Respondent features that make that job easier. Whether you’re new to the platform or a seasoned veteran, there’s something here...

How To Uncover Blind Spots In Your User Research

If you're not conducting user interviews, you're missing out on critical insights. Here's how to uncover blind spots in your user research.

User research can be an essential and incredibly effective tool to grow your business, but how do we show the value of this research to our teams?

Examining the world through qualitative inquiry

Recruiting participants for a qualitative research study

How do qualitative researchers locate potential participants for a study? What approaches might be used to recruit people? Clearly the easiest way to recruit people is to ask people you already know to participate in your study. This is potentially fraught with difficulty, however, since this is known as “convenience sampling”, which is typically perceived to be the weakest form of sampling. Of course there are exceptions to this. For example, if a researcher is doing an autoethnographic study, this would involve talking to people within the researcher’s friendship, family and professional circles (Chang, 2008). Yet, qualitative researchers use a variety of strategies to recruit people. Let’s look at some of these.

Recruiting via personal and professional connections

When researchers are “insiders” to the group that they are examining, then a first place to begin is to start with people who are known. This might mean seeking recommendations for potential participant from known others, and even asking for “expert recommendations”. It might be worthwhile to set up preliminary meetings with people who have a good deal of expertise in a field to ask for recommendations. For example, in my very first qualitative study which examined how music teachers dealt with inaccurate singers, I began by getting in touch with music advisors, and asking them for recommendations for exemplary teachers. I was able to interview music advisors as well as the teachers who they recommended to me. I also arranged visits to these schools for observations. In the same study, I was also able to talk to recognized experts in the field of music education. I was very fortunate at the time to be working with an adviser who was organizing an international conference. She acted as a gate-keeper, in that she introduced me to many of these experts whom I was able to interview during the conference.

Gatekeepers – people who have administrative positions, or in-depth information about a particular setting — can be incredibly helpful, if not crucial, to gain access to a particular community of setting. Sometimes, although people who serve as “formal gatekeepers” to a particular setting may provide access for a research study, those who serve as “informal gatekeepers” may withhold access (Wanat, 2008). Rugkåsa and Canvin (2011) discuss issues that they found to have impacted gatekeepers’ attitudes towards allowing researchers access to a particular community (in their study, they were working with Black and minority ethnic communities in the UK). These included (non)payment of participants and reciprocal arrangements with local community groups. These researchers recommend that researchers use flexible recruitment strategies that attend to the local contexts in which research is being conducted. Let’s look further at the kinds of recruitment strategies used by researchers.

Recruiting via fliers, newspaper advertisements, emails and letters

As anyone who has spent time on a university campus will know, researchers frequently recruit participants via fliers and advertisements. Sometimes, but not always, payment for participation is included as an incentive. Another frequently used approach is to send email or letter requests to people thought to meet sampling criteria. Here, a researcher might purchase a mailing list, and locate people via the information provided with the mailing list, and send letters or emails. Similarly, recruitment notices can be sent via established listservs. It is useful to get in touch with the list-owner first, however, to check if these sorts of notice might be allowed on a listserv.

Recruiting through face-to-face interactions

Sometimes researchers uses face-to-face interactions as a primary method,  recruiting  in neighborhoods through knocking on doors (Freeman, 2000), standing on street corners (McCormack et al., 2013), or visiting boarding houses and airline terminals (Thomas, Bloor, & Frankland, 2007). Here, participants are not known to them, but are recruited on the spot. Putting oneself forward in these kinds of ways as a researcher may entail feelings of “relief, despair, embarrassment, hilarity and even hysteria” (Thomas et al., 2007, p. 435). What they refer to here is the emotional labor entailed in seeking people to participate in studies, yet experiencing repeated refusals.

Yet sometimes, even though researchers might use multiple recruitment methods, efforts appear to be futile. There are few, if any, volunteers. What is happening here?

Difficulties in recruitment for research studies

Researchers have written about some of the problems entailed in recruiting participants for research on sensitive topics (Butera, 2006; Culley, Hudson, & Rapport, 2007), private topics (McCormack, Adams, & Anderson, 2013),and  stigmatized or illegal activities such as prostitution or drug-dealing (Dietze, 2002; Roth, 2012). Further, because of historical abuses perpetrated by researchers, some populations are rightly suspicious of becoming involved in research studies (Reverby, 2009; Skloot, 2010). To address some of these concerns, researchers have worked in participatory ways with community groups (Anthony, Lee, Barry, & Kappesser, 2010), and include members of the populations in which they are engaging with as co-researchers (Shelton & Rianon, 2004). They have also worked with bicultural recruiters (Rugkåsa & Canvin, 2011). Developing relationships with communities will likely take extended time in order to build relationships that will lead to successful recruitment of participants through information sharing and face-to-face interactions (Sixsmith, Boneham, & Goldring, 2003).

Although it is not possible to project a path to recruitment of participants that will always prove successful, researchers have been generous in sharing their recruitment challenges and the strategies that they have used. If you run into challenges with recruiting participants, take a look at what others have done. With more time, and through using a variety of recruitment methods, you will likely be successful. All the best with these efforts.

Kathy Roulston

NB: This post draws on information included in (Roulston & Martinez, 2015). For more information on sampling and selection, see LeCompte and Preissle (1993).

Anthony, J. S., Lee, R. C., Barry, D. G., & Kappesser, M. (2010). Recruiting and Keeping African American Women in an Ethnographic Study of Pregnancy: The Community-Based Partnership Model. Field Methods, 22 (2), 125-132. doi:10.1177/1525822×09358645

Butera, K. J. (2006). Manhunt The Challenge of Enticing Men to Participate in a Study on Friendship. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (6), 1262-1282.

Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Culley, L., Hudson, N., & Rapport, F. (2007). Using Focus Groups With Minority Ethnic Communities: Researching Infertility in British South Asian Communities. Qualitative Health Research, 17 (1), 102-112. doi:10.1177/1049732306296506

Dietze, P. (2002). Using ambulance attendances to recruit people who have experienced non-fatal heroin overdose. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 67 (1), 99.

Freeman, M. (2000). Knocking on Doors: On Constructing Culture. Qualitative Inquiry, 6 (3), 359.

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.

McCormack, M., Adams, A., & Anderson, E. (2013). Taking to the streets: the benefits of spontaneous methodological innovation in participant recruitment. Qualitative Research, 13 (2), 228-241.

Reverby, S. (2009). Examining Tuskegee : the infamous syphilis study and its legacy . University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill.

Roth, A. M. (2012). A methodological approach to improve the sexual health of vulnerable female Populations: incentivized peer-recruitment and field-based STD testing. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved, 23 (1), 367.

Roulston, K., & Martinez, B. (2015). Recruitment and sampling in consumer research. In P. Hackett (Ed.), Consumer ethnography: Qualitative and cultural approaches to consumer research . New York & London Routledge.

Rugkåsa, J., & Canvin, K. (2011). Researching Mental Health in Minority Ethnic Communities: Reflections on Recruitment. Qualitative Health Research, 21 (1), 132-143. doi:10.1177/1049732310379115

Shelton, A. J., & Rianon, N. J. (2004). Recruiting Participants from a Community of Bangladeshi Immigrants for a Study of Spousal Abuse: An Appropriate Cultural Approach. Qualitative Health Research, 14 (3), 369-380. doi:10.1177/1049732303261957

Sixsmith, J., Boneham, M., & Goldring, J. E. (2003). Accessing the Community: Gaining Insider Perspectives From the Outside. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (4), 578-589. doi:10.1177/1049732302250759

Skloot, R. (2010). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks . New York: Crown Publishers.

Thomas, M., Bloor, M., & Frankland, J. (2007). The process of sample recruitment: an ethnostatistical perspective. Qualitative Research, 7 (4), 429-446.

Wanat, C. L. (2008). Getting Past the Gatekeepers: Differences Between Access and Cooperation in Public School Research. Field Methods, 20 (2), 191-208. doi:10.1177/1525822×07313811

Share this:

Published by qualpage

Kathy Roulston is a professor in the Qualitative Research program in the Department of Lifelong Education, Administration and Policy at the University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA. She teaches qualitative research methods, and has written on qualitative interviewing. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9429-2694 Kathryn J. Roulston on ResearchGate My books include: Interviewing: A guide to theory and practice, see: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/interviewing/book272521 Interactional studies of qualitative interviews. See: https://benjamins.com/catalog/z.220 View all posts by qualpage

One thought on “ Recruiting participants for a qualitative research study ”

Very useful

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Revising Recruitment for Focus Groups to Meet Shifting Needs during COVID-19

Pearman d. parker.

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Nursing, Little Rock, Arkansas

Jean C. McSweeney

Kristie b. hadden.

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine, Little Rock, Arkansas

Kaycee G. Hess

Pearman D. Parker, PhD, MPH, PMH-BC is a Clinical Assistant Professor, and Jean C. McSweeney, PhD, RN, FAAN, FAHA is a Professor Emeritus, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Nursing, Little Rock, AR.

Kristie B. Hadden, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Medical Humanities and Bioethics in the College of Medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR.

Kaycee Hess, BSN, RN is a graduate student, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Nursing, Little Rock, AR.

Background:

The COVID-19 pandemic forced researchers to modify recruitment strategies to meet accrual goals for qualitative studies. Traditional methods of in-person recruiting and using paper marketing material were eliminated almost overnight at the onset of the pandemic. Researchers quickly adapted their recruitment strategies, but researchers had to shift local, in-person recruitment efforts to solely using online platforms. The shifting recruitment strategies were accompanied with unexpected challenges, but we were able to meet our accrual goal for focus groups.

Objectives:

The objective of this brief report is to explore new recruitment strategies that developed during the COVID-19 pandemic and offer suggestions for future online-based qualitative studies.

Prior to COVID-19, we designed four main strategies (research registry, marketing material, social media, and provider endorsement) to recruit potential participants for focus groups as part of a qualitative, descriptive study involving young women breast cancer survivors. After the onset of COVID-19, we successfully adapted each of our initial four strategies to recruit potential participants in an incremental process. Using these adapted strategies, a total of 62 young women completed the first part of the data collection process prior to participating in a focus group. Thirty-three women participated in the focus groups and the remaining 29 participants were lost to follow-up. The vast majority of participants were recruited through marketing material and social media after making strategic changes to recruitment.

Discussion:

The most effective method of recruitment was the strategic use of marketing material and social media, and we offer suggestions for researchers considering online recruitment methods. We recommend that researchers use various social media platforms, specific hashtags, and target their sample population at the onset of the study. The data collection changes initiated by the effects of COVID-19 may remain, and researchers can consider implementing permanent recruitment strategies to best meet the needs of this new landscape of conducing online focus groups.

The COVID-19 pandemic created a series of unpredictable effects for nearly 16 months in health systems and across Academia. Major funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration encouraged researchers to follow their local Institutional Review Boards and university regulations while keeping participant safety paramount ( Food and Drug Administration, 2020 ; National Institutes of Health, 2020 ). Following the recommendation and guidance from numerous universities across the country, qualitative researchers were affected as many studies were halted in the middle of recruitment, especially at the beginning of the pandemic. Traditional approaches to recruitment, such as in-person recruiting in waiting rooms and posting paper fliers, were eliminated almost overnight. After the initial pause in recruitment was lifted, researchers had to quickly adapt strategies to accommodate the new landscape created by COVID-19.

The traditional recruitment methods for qualitative, descriptive studies include a mixture of in-person and online strategies. The strategies used for recruiting in-person focus groups traditionally include local advertisements, provider endorsements, and marketing outreach efforts to members in the community ( Marshall & Rossman, 2011 ). Within focus groups for women with breast cancer, traditionally groups range from five to nine participants per group ( Ceballos et al., 2021 ; Currin-McCulloch et al., 2021 ; Yelton et al., 2021 ). Though qualitative studies have no set sample goal equivalent to quantitative studies, researchers generally stop recruiting once they reach data saturation (meaning no new data emerges; Creswell, 2013 ). These traditional strategies have generally been successful to meet data saturation and accrual goals for in-person focus groups ( Rogers et al., 2021 ), but when the pandemic forced non-essential, in-person gatherings to halt, researchers had to shift local, in-person recruitment efforts to solely using online platforms. The shifting recruitment strategies were accompanied with unexpected challenges, but we were able to meet our accrual goal for focus groups. We consulted the literature ( Quach et al., 2013 ; Topolovec-Vranic & Natarajan, 2016 ) and met with communication specialists to revise our recruitment plan. However, we moved forward carefully as we had no published guidance on how to navigate stress and emotional turmoil of potential participants caused by the unprecedented pandemic. Thus, the purpose of this article is to discuss the recruitment strategy changes as a response to COVID-19. We conclude by offering suggestions for researchers in navigating this new qualitative research landscape in similar virtual settings.

Overview of Study

The purpose of the descriptive, qualitative study was to explore perceptions of cancer educational material for young women breast cancer survivors who completed active treatment within the last five years. We sought to recruit 32 – 40 young women breast cancer survivors to participate in focus groups. Young women were asked to consent and complete a demographic questionnaire and the Newest Vital Sign (NVS; Pfizer, 2011 ) health literacy instrument prior to participating in a focus group. The consent, questionnaire, and health literacy instrument were administered through REDCap – an electronic data capturing tool housed at our institution ( Harris et al., 2009 ).

All research was conducted ethically, received IRB approval, and operated in accordance with all applicable government regulations and University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) research policies and procedures. All participants completed consents via REDCap ( Harris et al., 2009 ) and emphasis was placed that participation in focus groups was confidential and voluntary due to the sensitive nature of the study.

Prior to COVID-19, we designed our recruitment protocol to include four major recruitment approaches to meet the accrual goal for this study: 1) AResearch Registry – a statewide research registry; 2) marketing materials; 3) social media promotion; and 4) provider endorsement in local clinical settings. After the onset of COVID-19, we adapted each of our initial four strategies to recruit potential participants ( Table 1 ).

Overview of Recruitment Changes related to COVID-19

ARresearch Registry

The ARresearch Registry is a voluntary participant research registry of more than 7,500 men and women of different ethnic and racial backgrounds living primarily in Arkansas ( UAMS Translational Research Institute, 2021 ). The registry consists of mix of healthy volunteers (n = 3088; 40.7%) and those who may have a history of a chronic illness. Participants sign up through a REDCap portal link, answer demographic questions, and indicate which type of research they are interested in ( Harris et al., 2009 ; McSweeney et al., 2019 ). Most of the participants indicate they are interested in weight management (n = 3732, 49.2%), mental health (n = 3250, 42.8%), heart disease (n = 2800, 36.9%), and women’s health (n = 2739, 36.1%; UAMS Translational Research Institute, 2021 ).

Before COVID-19

We planned to use the ARresearch Registry to identify and recruit young women between the ages 18 – 45 with a history of breast cancer. We originally planned to implement a direct mailing campaign which included a personalized letter and colorful recruitment flier. The letter included purpose of the study, focus group details, time commitments, and compensation information, which was all delivered in a warm, friendly tone. The flier adhered to plain language guidelines ( Plain Language Action and Information Network, n.d. ) and included graphics representing young women with diverse backgrounds.

During COVID-19

Following the COVID-19 restrictions, we were unexpectedly unable to send out direct mailings due to the contact precautions to reduce the transmission of COVID-19. To accommodate this unanticipated change, we then created an e-mail campaign. We eliminated the personalized letter and replaced with a two step-process. First, an initial e-mail was sent out to all of the potential participants notifying them of a potential match for a study. Potential participants then had the option to opt-in enrollment by clicking an “I’m interested” link. Second, once participants opted in, a follow-up e-mail was sent with more information about the study (written out details, IRB approval, principal investigator information) and an accompanying IRB-approved flier embedded as a picture in the text. Potential participants would then click an embedded link which was directly connected to the consent, demographic questionnaire, and NVS instrument housed in a REDCap portal ( Harris et al., 2009 ). A participant was considered ‘enrolled’ upon completing all three portions.

Marketing Materials

We originally planned on strategically placing print marketing materials (recruitment fliers) throughout a local survivorship clinic. The fliers were designed to be placed in elevators and in waiting rooms where potential participants could see the study information and then opt-in by e-mailing a study coordinator for enrollment or further information.

At the onset of the pandemic, all print materials were removed from elevators and patient care areas per the contact precaution guidelines to reduce transmission of COVID-19. We quickly adapted and turned the printed flier into a digital copy with the intention to distribute electronically, if needed. We also added a QR code which linked directly to the consent, demographic questionnaire, and NVS instrument. The QR code was added in anticipation of when print materials would be allowed in patient care areas so potential participants could have direct access. After six months into the pandemic, we were able to replace the revised print materials with QR codes in elevators and patient care areas.

Social Media

We originally planned on using social media as a platform to advertise recruitment for the study within the state. We solicited recommendations from a communications specialist with a history of working with community-based cancer organizations throughout Arkansas. We also followed recommendations mentioned in the literature surrounding social media as a recruitment tool ( Quach et al., 2013 ; Topolovec-Vranic & Natarajan, 2016 ). The major platforms we originally intended to use were Facebook and Instagram. We planned to share a stock image with a link to the recruitment website where potential participants could learn about the study and enroll across all three major platforms. We also planned to purchase a ‘boosted post’ through Facebook which increased visibility of a post by reaching a broader audience ( Facebook, 2021 ) within a predetermined timeframe for three months to the audience following our main University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) page. The purpose of ‘boosting’ a post was to reach a larger audience beyond the immediate followers ( Facebook, 2021 ). Additionally, ‘boosting’ a post purchased access to metrics about the post such as link clicks, sharing, and engagement.

Our original social media plan continued through COVID-19 initially. We purchased a ‘boosted ad’ for our main UAMS Facebook page and ran for three months from November 2020 – January 2021. Initially we had low accrual and planned on purchasing more time for a boosted post. However, our institution’s Facebook page was unexpectedly restricted due to a billing issue, and our Office of Communications could not purchase more time.

Due to the unexpected page restriction and consistently low accrual numbers, we had to add additional recruitment tactics using social media and personal endorsements from community organizations. We then expanded our sampling beyond the state and reached out to national organizations to ask if they could share the study’s website link and digital flier with their followers. We asked for assistance through the Young Survival Coalition, Moffitt Cancer Center’s Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) program, and the Tampa Bay Community Cancer Network (TBCCN) to share the study flier and accompanying website to their supporters.

Provider Endorsements

The final recruitment strategy we employed was provider endorsement of our study. Providers (breast oncologists and nurse practitioners) allowed for us to strategically place fliers in the waiting room of a local survivorship clinic detailing the study (length of time required, incentives, focus group format). Providers also were given additional copies of the fliers and could directly refer a patient to the study (if they fit the inclusion criteria listed on the flier).

Due to the changes accompanying with COVID-19 protocols, patients were encouraged to partake in telehealth visits for their survivorship visits. Providers had the option to mention and reference the study at their discretion.

Using the search functions within ARresearch Registry, we identified 256 potential participants between the ages of 18 and 45 with an interest in breast cancer. The initial e-mail was sent to 256 potential participants. Fourteen women immediately declined (5.4%), and 38 women confirmed their interest (14.8%) by clicking an embedded link to receive more information. Of those 38, we lost 30 to follow up (78.9%) and seven (18.4%) were ineligible (had no history of breast cancer). We were able to recruit and enroll one participant using the ARresearch Registry.

Marketing Materials & Social Media

Our ‘boosted post’ ran initially for 50 days from November 2020 to January 2021 on the main UAMS Facebook page. The page had a reach of more than 39,152 people at the time. Over the course of 50 days, the post received 504 post engagements, 399 clicks so viewers could visit the outsourced link to the study’s main recruitment website, 64 post reactions (like, love, care, laugh, wow, sad, or angry), 23 shares to other pages, and 17 comments.

The Young Survival Coalition, Moffitt Cancer Center’s AYA program, and the TBCCN graciously agreed to share the digital fliers and link to the study’s website via an e-mail blast sent out to a pre-determined audience within list servs. These organizations helped expand our reach from statewide to national sampling. All but one of our participants were recruited using a combination of marketing materials (digital fliers) and social media.

Provider Endorsement

Providers continued to have the option to endorse the study during their clinic hours for telehealth visits at the initial onset of the pandemic and also after some in-person visits resumed approximately six months into the pandemic. However, no participants were recruited through providers’ direct endorsement of the study.

All of our recruitment strategies resulted in 128 REDCap entries. We received 66 (51.5%) entries with incomplete data. We had 62 (48.4%) potential participants who completed all three portions (consent, demographic questionnaire, and health literacy instrument). Thirty-three young women participated in the focus groups and the remaining participants ( n = 29, 46.8%) were lost to follow-up.

We adapted each of our four major recruitment strategies during COVID-19 to meet accrual goals for our qualitative, descriptive study. While most of our successful recruitment occurred using marketing materials and social media, we developed recommendations for researchers conducting qualitative studies.

First, the ARresearch Registry was not the most beneficial tool to use in recruiting despite the ‘opt-in’ method and user-friendly features of the tailored e-mails. We suspect this may have been due to the factors that many register users were local to Arkansas, a largely rural state with known connectivity issues ( Warren et al., 2019 ). Potential participants may have not had solid, reliable connections to participate in online focus groups. Additionally, the timing of the e-mail campaign may have directly affected the number of responses from the registry. The e-mail campaign was initiated in September 2020 and many participants may have been too overwhelmed with the increasing stress of balancing work-from-home life, childcare, and emotional turmoil of the pandemic to participate in a research study ( Freisthler et al., 2021 ; Miaskowski et al., 2020 ). The ARresearch Registry is documented to be a successful recruitment tool ( Gladden et al., 2020 ; McElfish et al., 2021 ; McSweeney et al., 2019 ) thus we suspect that the stress and burden of the pandemic ( Savard et al., 2021 ) largely influenced our potential participants and contributed to our lower accrual rates using the registry.

Even though researchers may not have to navigate through another pandemic in the immediate future, they will need to accommodate to unpredictable environmental stressors. For example, if a registry samples from largely one area of the country or state, unforeseen obstacles (such as natural disasters) can negatively affect recruitment. We suggest that researchers use ready-made registries with an established outreach spanning across the country to account for any unforeseen obstacles in one central location. Also, using such registries may allow researchers to oversample to reach accrual goals for more specific populations. Examples of established registries for young women breast cancer survivors include the Love Research Army ( Dr. Susan Love Foundation, 2021 ) and Young Survival Coalition ( Young Survival Coalition, 2021 ). Both of these research registries already have established networks and successful history of recruitment methods ( Su et al., 2019 ; Williamson et al., 2018 ).

Second, social media was beneficial in that all but one of our participants were recruited through Facebook ads and internal organizational promotion using list servs (weekly, bimonthly, and monthly e-mail blasts to pre-determined audiences) for the Young Survival Collation, Moffitt Cancer Center’s AYA program, and the TBCCN. However, we were missing specific data in terms of reach, thus we had no way to monitor the origins of the traffic or evaluate if we were oversampling in one particular area of the country. We also did not identify which social media platform would be the most useful prior to starting the study. This oversight may have reduced our reach to potential participants. Additionally, we used a well-designed web page promoting our study. This allowed for easy access and sharing across all platforms. Finally, we were unexpectedly promoted through personal endorsement to list servs through contacts with another large cancer institute in the Southeast. This personal touch provided a sense of security for participants ( Luck et al., 2017 ) and may have been one of the critical factors into our successful recruitment during the stressful and burdensome pandemic. We encourage researchers to continue to use such personalization regardless of any environmental factors like a national crisis or pandemic.

As researchers plan recruitment protocols, we recommend using specific survey software such as Qualtrics which can track location of respondents known as geolocation ( Qualtrics, 2021 ). Researchers can identify location of site traffic and then will be able to implement tailored strategies to reach a different population for more generalizable results, if needed. We also recommend that researchers identify which social media platforms are most successfully used by the researchers’ home institutions. Specific strategies per platform can produce favorable results if used carefully and with consideration such as using research-specific hashtags with heavy site traffic ( Arigo et al., 2018 ). Next, we cannot understate the significance of having a well-designed web page detailing the study. Researchers will want to ensure plain language principles are used and incorporate appropriate images consistent with their target population ( Vollenwyder et al., 2018 ). Lastly, the importance of maintaining relationships to assist with recruitment is critical to any successful research project.

Third, our strategy of using provider endorsements was practically eliminated as most of the clinical care shifted to telehealth due to the COVID-19 restrictions. Patients were not given fliers by providers, nor did they see many advertisements in the waiting room of the clinics since most of the appointments were online and fliers were not allowed to be posted until about six months into the study. Also, we did not implement any fidelity checks to evaluate whether study endorsements were being conducted in the telehealth sessions.

We recommend that researchers consider implementing a slide show or preview of a study during the telehealth waiting room time if they are recruiting from a clinical setting. Often patients will have to log on to the telehealth session and then wait for a provider while looking at a blank screen. This may be an opportune time to promote a study and describe essential details. Also, researchers may consider adding in an “I’m interested” button in the virtual waiting room which could prompt the provider to give more details at the conclusion of the telehealth session. Lastly, we recommend that researchers consider implementing random fidelity checks to ensure specific recruitment strategies are occurring as designed and at the rate intended ( Proctor et al., 2011 ).

The COVID-19 pandemic forced many researchers to rely on innovative data collection methods and accompanying recruitment strategies to meet accrual goals. While the long-term effects of COVID-19 on qualitative research have not yet been identified, we can expect that the success of these new methods and recruitment strategies will encourage researchers to continue using online data collection platforms and strategic social media recruitment methods. We particularly recommend using national and statewide registries like ARresearch Registry, utilizing social media strategically, and employing telehealth-based methods alongside provider endorsement after the stress and burden from the pandemic resolves. The success of these new adapted methods may usher in more research and give researchers more access to participants across the country.

Acknowledgement:

Dr. Parker is currently supported by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Translational Research Institute (TRI) grants KL2TR003108 and UL1TR003107 through the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Arkansas Breast Cancer Research Program. The authors would like to thank Heidi Charton, BA, for her assistance in coordinating the focus groups.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Ethical Conduct of Research: All research was conducted ethically and received IRB approval for study protocol #239621.

Contributor Information

Pearman D. Parker, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Nursing, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Jean C. McSweeney, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Nursing, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Kristie B. Hadden, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Kaycee G. Hess, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Nursing, Little Rock, Arkansas.

• Arigo D, Pagoto S, Carter-Harris L, Lillie SE, & Nebeker C. (2018). Using social media for health research: Methodological and ethical considerations for recruitment and intervention delivery . Digital Health , 4 , 2055207618771757. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ceballos RM, Hohl SD, Molina Y, Hempstead B, Thompson-Dodd J, Weatherby S, & Malen RC (2021). Oncology provider and African-American breast cancer survivor perceptions of the emotional experience of transitioning to survivorship . Journal of Psychosocial Oncology , 39 ( 1 ), 35–53. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell JW (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Currin-McCulloch J, Stanton A, Boyd R, Neaves M, & Jones B. (2021). Understanding breast cancer survivors’ information-seeking behaviours and overall experiences: a comparison of themes derived from social media posts and focus groups . Psychology & Health , 36 ( 7 ), 810–827. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dr. Susan Love Foundation. (2021). About the Love Research Army . https://drsusanloveresearch.org/love-research-army/
• Facebook. (2021). The difference between boosted posts and Facebook ads . https://www.facebook.com/business/help/317083072148603
• Food and Drug Administration. (2020). Conduct of clinical trials of medical products during the COVID-19 public health emergency: Guidance for industry, investigators, and Institutional Review Boards . https://www.fda.gov/media/136238/download
• Freisthler B, Gruenewald PJ, Tebben E, Shockley McCarthy K, & Price Wolf J. (2021). Understanding at-the-moment stress for parents during COVID-19 stay-at-home restrictions . Social Science & Medicine , 279 , In Press. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG, Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, & Conde JG (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support . Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 42 ( 2 ), 377–381. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gladden ME, Hung D, Bhandari NR, Franks AM, Russell L, White L, Fantegrossi WE, & Payakachat N. (2020). Arkansas community’s attitudes toward the regulation of medical cannabis and the pharmacist’s involvement in Arkansas medical cannabis . Journal of the American Pharmacists Association , 60 ( 1 ), 235–243. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luck L, Chok HN, & Wilkes L. (2017). Nurses as participants in research: An evaluation of recruitment techniques . Nurse Researcher , 25 ( 2 ), 44–48. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marshall C, & Rossman GB (2011). Designing Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• McElfish PA, Purvis R, James LP, Willis DE, & Andersen JA (2021). Perceived barriers to COVID-19 testing . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 ( 2278 ). [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McSweeney JC, Boateng B, James L, McElfish PA, Robinson D, Hatley SE, Christie P, & Indelicato N. (2019). Developing and launching a research participant registry . Health Communication , 34 ( 10 ), 1159–1165. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miaskowski C, Paul SM, Snowberg K, Abbott M, Borno H, Chang S, Chen LM, Cohen B, Hammer MJ, Kenfield SA, Kober KM, Levine JD, Pozzar R, Rhoads KF, Van Blarigan EL, & Van Loon K. (2020). Stress and symptom burden in oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic . Journal of Pain & Symptom Management , 60 ( 5 ), e25–e34. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Instiutes of Health. (2020). Guidance for NIH-funded clinical trials and human subjects studies affected by COVID-19 . https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-20-087.html
• Pfizer. (2011). The Newest Vital Sign . https://www.pfizer.com/health/literacy/public-policy-researchers/nvs-toolkit
• Plain Language Action and Information Network. (n.d.). What is plain language? https://www.plainlanguage.gov/about/definitions/
• Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, & Hensley M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda . Administration and Policy in Mental Health , 38 ( 2 ), 65–76. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quach S, Pereira JA, Russell ML, Wormsbecker AE, Ramsay H, Crowe L, Quan SD, & Kwong J. (2013). The good, bad, and ugly of online recruitment of parents for health-related focus groups: Lessons learned . Journal of Medical Internet Research , 15 ( 11 ), e250. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qualtrics. (2021). Understanding your data set . https://www.qualtrics.com/support/survey-platform/data-and-analysis-module/data/download-data/understanding-your-dataset/
• Rogers CR, Matthews P, Brooks E, Le Duc N, Washington C, McKoy A, Edmonson A, Lange L, & Fetters MD (2021). Barriers to and facilitators of recruitment of adult African American men for colorectal cancer research: An instrumental exploratory case study . JCO Oncology Practice , 17 ( 5 ), e686–e694. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savard J, Jobin-Théberge A, Massicotte V, & Banville C. (2021). How did women with breast cancer experience the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic? A qualitative study . Supportive Care in Cancer . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Su HI, Stark S, Kwan B, Boles S, Chingos D, Ehren J, Gorman JR, Krychman M, Romero SAD, Mao JJ, Pierce JP, & Natarajan L. (2019). Efficacy of a web-based women’s health survivorship care plan for young breast cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial . Breast Cancer Research And Treatment , 176 ( 3 ), 579–589. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Topolovec-Vranic J, & Natarajan K. (2016). The use of social media in recruitment for medical research studies: A scoping review . Journal of Medical Internet Research , 18 ( 11 ), e286. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UAMS Translational Research Institute. (2021). ARresearch Registry . https://arresearch.org [ Google Scholar ]
• Vollenwyder B, Schneider A, Krueger E, Brühlmann F, Opwis K, & Mekler ED (2018). How to use plain and easy-to-read language for a positive user experience on websites . International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs, [ Google Scholar ]
• Warren R, Schulte S, & Gibeault MJ (2019). Digital use and internet access in Fayetteville, Arkansas (Communication Faculty Publications and Presentations, Issue. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/commpub/1 [ Google Scholar ]
• Williamson TJ, Love SM, Clague DeHart JN, Jorge-Miller A, Eshraghi L, Cooper Ortner H, & Stanton AL (2018). Metastatic Breast Cancer Collateral Damage Project (MBCCD): Scale development and preliminary results of the Survey of Health, Impact, Needs, and Experiences (SHINE) . Breast Cancer Research And Treatment , 171 ( 1 ), 75–84. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yelton B, Brandt HM, Adams SA, Ureda JR, Lead JR, Fedrick D, Lewis K, Kulkarni S, & Friedman DB (2021). “Talk About Cancer and Build Healthy Communities”: How visuals are starting the conversation about breast cancer within African-American communities . International Quarterly of Community Health Education , 41 ( 3 ), 267–274. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Young Survival Coalition. (2021). Breast cancer research for young women . https://www.youngsurvival.org/learn/research

• Request a Proposal
• Fill a Medical Study
• Fill a Technical Study
• Case Studies
• Get in Our Database!
• Current Opportunities
• Respondent Bill of Rights
• Qualitative Services
• Transcription and Translation Services
• Facility Rental
• Meet Our Team

Project Recruitment

Need participants to join your study? We’ve got you covered for all your study recruitment needs.

Participate in a Study

Looking to participate in a paid study? View our participant resources for current opportunities and more.

Customer Satisfaction

Personalized Experience

Our team is dedicated to providing you a positive experience, whether you are recruiting for your project or participating in a study. 

Clear Communication

We practice transparency to provide you with the information you need to succeed. Your confidence in us is a priority.

Flexible Options

Options are available for every study type and situation. We recruit for remote and on-site studies, product testing, secret shopper, and more.

Focus Insite is a leader in qualitative market research recruitment, specializing in consumer, B2B, medical, and technical studies.

We recognize that study participants are the lifeline to every qualitative market research study. This is why we take our recruiting processes to the next level by following tailored methods resulting in highly qualified and dependable participants. 

We personalize your experience with transparent communication so you are never left wondering about the status of your project or participation.

Focus Insite serves as a single point of contact for both domestic and international recruitment, moderation, transcription, and translation services. We make it easy for you to focus on the research activities that you do best without having to worry about having the right participants in place.

Our Core Values

At Focus Insite, our core values serve as the foundation of our company. We practice each of our core values every day to better serve our team and our community.

Relationships

Develop a deeper personal connection  as well as keep  open, honest and proactive communication.

Despite the challenges we may face along the way, our perseverance as a team is what gets us to the finish line.  

Transparency

Leave nothing open for interpretation. Our transparency leads us to take ownership of our work.  

Take personal responsibility and learn from our mistakes. Strive for continual progress and make a difference.   

Cory Corrado

Client Services

CEO/Founder

Karen Bakowski

We’ve recruited for these global brands.

Whether you need participants for a focus group, in-depth interview, or product testing, our team will work with you for a successful outcome of your project. We’ve recruited participants for a variety of qualitative market research projects in a variety of industries. 

Partner with us and you’ll discover why., industry memberships.

Contact us today!

888-8-FOCUS-1 (888-836-2871)

We guarantee a prompt response to your inquiry.

www.childthemewp.com

How can we best serve you today?

Join Our Newsletter Today

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Test for Fentanyl
• if You Think Someone is Overdosing
• Stop Overdose
• Naloxone FAQs
• Stigma Reduction

About Stop Overdose

• Through preliminary research and strategic workshops, CDC identified four areas of focus to address the evolving drug overdose crisis.
• Stop Overdose resources speak to the reality of drug use, provide practical ways to prevent overdoses, educate about the risks of illegal drug use, and show ways to get help.

Drugs take nearly 300 lives every day. 1 To address the increasing number of overdose deaths related to both prescription opioids and illegal drugs, we created a website to educate people who use drugs about the dangers of illegally manufactured fentanyl, the risks and consequences of mixing drugs, the lifesaving power of naloxone, and the importance of reducing stigma around recovery and treatment options. Together, we can stop drug overdoses and save lives.

What you can do

• Get the facts on fentanyl
• Learn about lifesaving naloxone
• Understand the risks of polysubstance use
• Reduce stigma around recovery and treatment

Explore and download Stop Overdose and other educational materials on CDC's Overdose Resource Exchange .

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. National Vital Statistics System, Mortality 2018-2021 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released in 2023. Data are from the Multiple Cause of Death Files, 2018-2021, as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. Accessed at http://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10-expanded.html on Mar 5, 2024

Every day, drugs claim hundreds of lives. The Stop Overdose website educates drug users on fentanyl, naloxone, polysubstance use, and dealing with stigma.

• UNC Chapel Hill

Medical Officer/Study Coordinator (PACMan Study)

Job Summary

The Medical Officer/Study Coordinator at UNC Project will act as the central catalyst for all PACMan study activities. Key responsibilities include: coordination of project staff; overseeing the study team for day-to-day project activities; communicating closely with the PACMan PI, PRISM Overall PI/ CSO, and co-investigators; being the main liaison for all project stakeholders, including colleagues from MOH and PEPFAR implementing partners; following the project work plan; and encouraging the study team to follow the study protocol, SOPs, tools, and UNCPM procedures. In addition, the Medical Officer/ Study Coordinator will work with the study team to develop and implement all study policies, procedures, and tools, as well as support training, guidance, and mentoring to study staff working on the PACMan study. S/he will collaborate with other disciplines and healthcare staff to ensure optimum care for study participants. S/he will participate in quality improvement activities. S/he will be responsible for tracking and reporting all adverse events.

Specific Duties/Responsibilities

• Develop SOPS, checklists, study forms, and registers to improve quality of study implementation.
• Support creation, monitor translation and assist maintaining version control of study Informed Consent Forms, including translated versions, and other required study documents.
• Co-develop work plan in conjunction with stakeholders
• Support the recruitment of appropriate staff in collaboration with the PACMan PI
• Assess staff training/mentoring/coaching needs and assist with development and provision of training/mentorship to study staff to update/maintain competence of study staff.
• Assist in organizing all aspects of study staff training to enable study personnel to fulfill study/program responsibilities.
• Coordinate all aspects of quantitative and qualitative data collection, quality control, reporting and storage.
• Support project progress reports and presentations to funder (NIH) and other stakeholders as required, including for internal M&E and quality assurance purposes.
• Oversee management of study regulatory documents.
• Maintain Human Subjects Protection (HSP) and Good Clinical Practices (GCP) principles and certification, as well as confidentiality at all times.
• Be knowledgeable of and adhere to the study protocol.
• Develop and maintain study M&E and quality assurance systems, in collaboration with Data Manager and Data Associate, to ensure optimum study function and quality research data.
• Assess, manage, and report adverse events and serious adverse events.
• Implement research protocols and/or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
• Work effectively with UNC Project partners to ensure excellent intervention delivery at study sites
• Collect timely comprehensive, legible, accurate and complete clinical data from eligible study participants, assuring good data quality
• Support delivery of PACMan intervention with competency and according to study protocols/SOPs
• Preparing and maintaining essential and regulatory study documents.
• Assist with planning, writing, editing and submission of abstracts/manuscripts and other knowledge dissemination activities.

Communication and Working Relationships

• Maintain an effective means of communication with different study departments, work colleagues, other health workers, study participants and visitors.
• Participate in local and international clinical/multi-professional meetings and conferences as required
• Promote and safeguard the interest and well-being of the study participants at all times

Personal and People Development

• Develops and maintains continuing personal and professional development to meet the changing demands in the area of research.
• Act as a role model in professional and personal attributes for all members of staff
• Participate in the orientation of new staff and act as a preceptor and mentor
• Contribute to Continuing Professional Development (CPD) of staff
• Oversee preparation and submission of field allowances, receipts and reconciliation registers as required.
• Support the monthly review and monitoring of project expenses with project manager and MPIs as well as budget reviews as necessary and solicit appropriate approvals.
• In conjunction with administration, maintain appropriate inventory tracking mechanisms.
• Supervise study staff
• Ensure efficient management of study resources
• Participate in the maintenance of accurate and up-to-date records in accordance with the Medical Council of Malawi

Health and Safety Responsibilities

• Comply with existing health and safety policies and procedures of the UNC Project and Malawi Ministry of Health (MOH).

Quality Assurance

• Adhere to the study protocol quality assurance, quality control policy, guidelines, and procedures.

Further Information

The post holder must at all times:

• Work in accordance with the Medical Council of Malawi Code of Professional Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures
• Strictly adhere to the provisions of the Patient’s Charter as provided by the MOH.
• Participate in National Health Programs

Qualifications and Experience

• MBBS, MB.Ch.B, or equivalent
• Permanent Certification / Registration with the Medical Council of Malawi
• Continuous Professional Development (CPD) track record
• Must have completed 2 years internship in an accredited Health institution
• Must have at least 2 years of research experience in a study coordinator or study medical officer role
• Must have an active human subjects protection certificate
• Knowledge of MOH Patients’ Charter
• Knowledge of Health and Safety measures
• Knowledge and understanding of quality assurance issues
• General Knowledge of health-related issues
• Knowledge of HIV
• Knowledge of research methods

Advanced life Abilities

• Basic life support/resuscitation skills
• Excellent interpersonal skills

Please send your applications via email to:

The Country Director

UNC Project

[email protected]

Deadline for receiving applications:   Wednesday, May 22, 2024

Only shortlisted candidates will be acknowledged.