Recruitment and participation of general practices in research networks: quantitative evaluation of the first joint study in six German practice-based research networks

Background Recruiting general practices for research is challenging. Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) may improve participation, but little is known about how newly established PBRNs function operationally in multicentre studies. Aim To evaluate recruitment effort, participation, data completeness, and acceptability in the first joint study of six German PBRNs. Design and setting Multicentre cross-sectional feasibility study across 18 university sites in six German PBRNs. Method GPs completed an online REDCap survey covering practice characteristics, aggregated patient numbers manually extracted from practice management systems (PMS), and attitudes towards post-COVID/post-vaccination-related symptoms. Sites documented contacts, reminders, and time investment. A two-step cluster analysis characterised site-level recruitment strategies, and a generalised linear mixed model examined predictors of data completeness. Results Of 906 contacted GPs, 156 participated (17.2%); 69 (7.6%) provided near-complete datasets (≥90% item response). Recruitment required 134 staff-hours overall, equivalent to about 2 hours and 13 contacted GPs per near-complete dataset, and varied substantially between sites. Two recruitment clusters emerged: an email-oriented, low-effort strategy that recruited more practices overall, and a phone-intensive, high-effort strategy that achieved higher response rates but lower acceptability. Data completeness was lowest for PMS-derived patient data. Completeness varied by site, but not by PBRN or recruitment cluster, and was higher among younger and female GPs, in multi-doctor practices, and among those with prior research experience. Conclusion In this first joint German PBRN project, participation and data completeness were limited despite network affiliation. Site-level capability, practice research experience, and easier extraction of routine data appear crucial for future PBRN studies.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
BJGP Open
Published
2026-10-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgpo.2026.0113
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Recruitment and participation of general practices in research networks: quantitative evaluation of the first joint study in six German practice-based research networks

Susanne Löscher, Christian Kretzschmann, Andreas Polanc, Steve Piller et al.
BJGP Open
Ethics in Clinical Research
article

Recruitment and participation of general practices in research networks: quantitative evaluation of the first joint study in six German practice-based research networks

Susanne Löscher, Christian Kretzschmann, Andreas Polanc, Steve Piller, Karen Voigt, Susanne Doepfmer, Michael Pentzek, Karola Mergenthal, Elena Darinka Hohmann, Ann-Kathrin Lepper
article en

Abstract

Background Recruiting general practices for research is challenging. Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) may improve participation, but little is known about how newly established PBRNs function operationally in multicentre studies. Aim To evaluate recruitment effort, participation, data completeness, and acceptability in the first joint study of six German PBRNs. Design and setting Multicentre cross-sectional feasibility study across 18 university sites in six German PBRNs. Method GPs completed an online REDCap survey covering practice characteristics, aggregated patient numbers manually extracted from practice management systems (PMS), and attitudes towards post-COVID/post-vaccination-related symptoms. Sites documented contacts, reminders, and time investment. A two-step cluster analysis characterised site-level recruitment strategies, and a generalised linear mixed model examined predictors of data completeness. Results Of 906 contacted GPs, 156 participated (17.2%); 69 (7.6%) provided near-complete datasets (≥90% item response). Recruitment required 134 staff-hours overall, equivalent to about 2 hours and 13 contacted GPs per near-complete dataset, and varied substantially between sites. Two recruitment clusters emerged: an email-oriented, low-effort strategy that recruited more practices overall, and a phone-intensive, high-effort strategy that achieved higher response rates but lower acceptability. Data completeness was lowest for PMS-derived patient data. Completeness varied by site, but not by PBRN or recruitment cluster, and was higher among younger and female GPs, in multi-doctor practices, and among those with prior research experience. Conclusion In this first joint German PBRN project, participation and data completeness were limited despite network affiliation. Site-level capability, practice research experience, and easier extraction of routine data appear crucial for future PBRN studies.

BJGP Open
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Ethics in Clinical Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.