As one of the research managers in a large research hospital, you are in charge of neurobiology studies. You have been asked to work with the manager of the oncology studies to potentially implement a prevention study that will recruit healthy participants using crowd-sourcing. Although you have some knowledge of patient-centered research like crowd sourcing, this is new to you as well. However, you have embraced this project as a leader with a vision, and want it to be successful.
Your colleague in oncology is known as Sally-no because she is not open to new methods or ways of handling situations – this is one of the reasons you have been brought onboard. Her team is also very reluctant and resistant to change, having watched and learned from Sally-no.
Consequently, you have two challenges, a new project that will require you to research its pros and cons, and a negative team to work with. Here is your assignment:
You will write a report directed to senior management describing the crowd sourcing recruitment strategy and why it is a viable strategy. Then, you will outline your strategy for winning over the oncology team to perform a pilot study using crowd sourcing.
· 3-5 pages (APA format, with double spacing, references/citations, etc. – no need for title page) – 15 points
· 2-3 paragraphs describe crowd sourcing as is used in research recruitment – 20 points
· 2-3 paragraphs describe the pros and cons of the technique including ethical, logistical, and other issues – 20 points
· 2-3 paragraphs as to why you believe it is a viable strategy for a prevention study – 15 points
· 3-5 paragraphs on how you will win over the oncology team (using techniques from the textbook, your readings or your research – make sure any quotations or references are cited and referenced) – 25 points
1-2 paragraphs summary conclusion on your findings and strategy – 5 points
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
The use of crowd sourcing as a recruitment strategy in medical research has gained popularity in recent years. It involves engaging a large number of individuals from diverse backgrounds to participate in research studies. This report aims to outline the crowd sourcing recruitment strategy, discuss its pros and cons, highlight its viability for a prevention study, and propose a strategy for winning over the reluctant oncology team to conduct a pilot study using crowd sourcing.
1. Description of crowd sourcing in research recruitment:
Crowd sourcing in research recruitment refers to the process of outsourcing the recruitment of study participants to a wider population, often using online platforms. It involves reaching out to a large pool of individuals who may not have direct connections to the medical institution conducting the study. Through the utilization of social media, online communities, and other digital platforms, researchers can connect with potential participants and invite them to enroll in the study.
2. Pros and cons of crowd sourcing as a recruitment technique:
a. Pros:
– Increased access to a diverse population: Crowd sourcing enables researchers to reach a broader range of individuals, allowing for greater diversity in study participants. This can enhance the generalizability of research findings.
– Cost-effective: Compared to traditional recruitment methods, crowd sourcing can be a cost-effective strategy. It eliminates the need for extensive advertising or the use of paid recruitment agencies.
– Faster recruitment: The use of online platforms allows for rapid recruitment of participants, potentially reducing study enrollment time.
b. Cons:
– Limited control over participant characteristics: Crowd sourcing may result in a less controlled sample, as researchers have less ability to screen potential participants for specific criteria. This could lead to a less homogenous sample and potentially impact the internal validity of the study.
– Ethical considerations: Crowd sourcing may raise ethical concerns regarding participant privacy and informed consent. Researchers must ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect participants’ rights and confidentiality.
– Selection bias: Crowd sourcing may attract individuals who are more motivated or comfortable engaging in online platforms, potentially introducing a selection bias that may not be representative of the general population.
3. Viability of crowd sourcing for a prevention study:
Crowd sourcing can be a viable strategy for a prevention study due to its ability to reach large numbers of healthy participants. Prevention studies often require a substantial number of participants to detect small effects or rare outcomes. By leveraging crowd sourcing, researchers can achieve the necessary sample size more efficiently. Additionally, the use of crowd sourcing can facilitate the recruitment of individuals who are geographically dispersed, enabling a more diverse sample for generalizability.
4. Strategies for winning over the oncology team:
To win over the oncology team and encourage their participation in a pilot study using crowd sourcing, several strategies can be employed:
– Open and transparent communication: Clearly communicate the goals, benefits, and potential impact of the pilot study using crowd sourcing. Address any concerns or reservations the team may have and provide evidence from successful implementations in other research fields.
– Engage team members in the decision-making process: Encourage active participation from the oncology team by involving them in the study design and decision-making. This will foster a sense of ownership and increase their investment in the project.
– Provide supportive resources: Offer training and resources on crowd sourcing recruitment methods to the oncology team. Address their concerns about the unfamiliar approach by providing guidance and support throughout the process.
– Highlight the potential for growth and collaboration: Emphasize how embracing new strategies can enhance the team’s reputation and contribute to advancements in oncology research. The pilot study using crowd sourcing can serve as a gateway to future collaborations and innovative approaches.
Conclusion:
In summary, crowd sourcing as a recruitment strategy in medical research offers advantages such as access to a diverse participant pool, cost-effectiveness, and faster recruitment. However, it also poses challenges related to participant characteristics, ethical considerations, and potential selection bias. Despite these challenges, the strategy is viable for a prevention study, particularly in achieving larger sample sizes and reaching geographically dispersed individuals. Winning over the resistant oncology team can be achieved through open communication, involvement in decision-making, provision of resources, and highlighting potential benefits and collaborations. This comprehensive approach will pave the way for a successful pilot study using crowd sourcing in oncology research.
