gms | German Medical Science

1st International Conference of the German Society of Nursing Science

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pflegewissenschaft e. V.

04.05. - 05.05.2018, Berlin

Participation and drop-out by nurses in longitudinal research: lessons learned from the EvaSIS-study

Meeting Abstract

  • presenting/speaker Kathrin Seibert - Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen
  • Dirk Peschke - University of Bremen
  • Christin Richter - Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg
  • Maria Hanf - Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg
  • Gero Langer - Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg
  • Heike Aichinger - Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI
  • Tanja Bratan - Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI
  • Karin Wolf-Ostermann - Institute of Public Health and Nursing, University of Bremen

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pflegewissenschaft e.V. (DGP). 1st International Conference of the German Society of Nursing Science. Berlin, 04.-05.05.2018. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2018. Doc18dgpP65

doi: 10.3205/18dgp105, urn:nbn:de:0183-18dgp1057

Veröffentlicht: 30. April 2018

© 2018 Seibert et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). Lizenz-Angaben siehe http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Gliederung

Text

Background: Low response rates have been reported in several studies concerning nurses participating in cross-sectional and longitudinal research. Various strategies exist to improve response rates, incorporating incentive and design-based approaches. The EvaSIS-Study aimed to evaluate nurses’ experiences with a newly established nursing documentation system (structural model) in out- and inpatient long-term care facilities throughout Germany using a design-based recruitment approach.

Methods: In a formative process evaluation, directors of nursing (DoN) in 8,957 facilities and 10,274 nurses in 453 facilities were invited to participate in paper-based and online surveys at two points in time. By using an individually generated code, participants’ answers were matched to identify changes over time. In addition, nurses were given the choice to participate in in-depth focus groups.

Results: The design-based recruitment approach yielded in a proportionally low response rate in regard to the initially invited sample: 1,218 (13.6 %) DoN and 1,759 (17.1 %) nurses from 324 facilities responded at baseline (minimum response rate). 1,136 (12.7 %) DoN and 1,485 nurses (14.5 %) were eligible for participation in the follow-up survey three months after baseline which was completed by 534 DoN (47 %) and 618 nurses (41.6 %). Answers of 267 nurses (2.6 %) could be matched and compared over time. 54 participants took part in the focus groups.

Conclusions: The chosen approach did not contribute to a higher proportional participation of nurses in the EvaSIS-Study. Reasons for drop-out and meager participation remain mostly unknown. Next to design-based approaches, incentive-based methodologies should be considered to raise nurses’ participation rates in future research.

Funding: The study was funded by the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds (GKV-SV).