Recruitment, data collection, participation rate, and representativeness of the international cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study across 38 countries

Tatsioni, Athina; Groenewegen, Peter; Van Poel, Esther; Vafeidou, Kyriaki; Assenova, Radost; Hoffmann, Kathryn; Schaubroeck, Emmily; Stark, Stefanie; Tkachenko, Victoria; Willems, Sara

doi:10.1186/s12875-024-02438-w

Table 1 Invitation strategies used by the country coordinators. Eleven countries used more than one strategy

From: Recruitment, data collection, participation rate, and representativeness of the international cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study across 38 countries

Invitation strategy	Number of countries reporting this component, n (%)
Published invitation (N = 9)
Where published?
As a newsletter (Institutions, Journals)	2 (22.2)
In social media	4 (44.4)
On Medical Association website	2 (22.2)
Multiple venues	1 (11.1)
Who was reached?
GPs /GPs trainees	9 (100)
Practice managers	6 (66.7)
Other^a	1 (11.1)
Which region(s) in the country?
Whole country	7 (77.8)
Specific region(s)	2 (22.2)
Direct contact with all GP practices (N = 19)
Who was reached?
GPs /GP trainees	19 (100)
Practice managers	11 (57.9)
Other^b	1 (5.3)
Οrigin of the contact list
Government or a governmental organisation	3 (15.8)
National College of GPs (or equivalent)	11 (57.9)
Previous study	3 (15.8)
Known GPs / GPs collaborated with before	9 (47.4)
Other^c	2 (10.5)
Which region(s) in the country?
Whole country	17 (89.5)
Specific region(s)	2 (10.5)
How the invitation was sent
By post	1 (5.3)
By e-mail	18 (94.7)
Participants were reached by phone	1 (5.3)
Other^d	3 (15.8)
Contact with a sample of GP practices (N = 19)
Who was reached?
GPs /GP trainees	18 (94.7)
Practice managers	10 (52.6)
Other	0
Οrigin of the contact list
Government or a governmental organisation	6 (31.6)
National College of GPs (or equivalent)	6 (31.6)
Previous study	4 (21.1)
Known GPs / GPs collaborated with before	10 (52.6)
Other^e	3 (15.8)
Sample selection
Random sample	3 (15.8)
Convenience sample	13 (68.4)
Mixed selection process	3 (15.8)
Sample stratification used?
No	14 (73.7)
Yes^f	4 (21.1)
Yes, for part of the sample^g	1 (5.3)
Which region(s) in the country?
Whole country	15 (78.9)
Specific region(s)	4 (21.1)
How the invitation was sent
By e-mail	19 (100)
Participants were reached by phone	3 (15.8)
Other^h	4 (21.1)
Other invitation strategy used (N = 7)
Who was reached?
GPs /GP trainees	6 (85.7)
Practice managers	3 (42.9)
Other	0
Which region(s) in the country?
Whole country	5 (71.4)
Specific region(s)	2 (28.6)
How the invitation was sent
By e-mail	6 (85.7)
Participants were reached by phone	2 (28.6)
Otherⁱ	2 (28.6)

GP General practitioner
^aGermany also included primary care internists
^bTurkey also included postgraduate physicians
^cSerbia used a Medical Chamber list; and Turkey used a university list of GP-alumni and GP-trainees
^dNorth Macedonia included a viber group of GPs; Bosnia and Herzegovina and Poland did not provide specific information
^eCzech Republic used a list of the initiative ‘Young Practitioners’; the Netherlands used a sample of practices of the Nivel Healthcare Professionals Registries, and Romania included a list of family doctors from an insurance organization
^fKosovo* stratified the sample by gender; Greece and Spain by geographical area; and Austria by gender and geographical area
^gBelgium stratified part of the sample by geographical area
^hSpain used Whatsapp; Kosovo* included a printed copy of the questionnaire given in person; Bosnia and Herzegovina and Romania did not provide specific information
ⁱIsrael printed copies of the survey for participants in conferences; Belgium did not provide specific information

Back to article page

ISSN: 2731-4553

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com

BMC Primary Care

Contact us