{"paper_id":"252f8a18-b221-42e9-82b0-096ea20275be","body_text":"Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung... | HRB Open Research <!-- --> <!-- --> <!-- This is commented out to fix display problems on mobile devices. We may use it again once we implement a responsive design that supports native device resolutions. --> dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:[\"bam.nr-data.net\"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:\"438030\",trustKey:\"438030\",agentID:\"772317073\",licenseKey:\"97f8f67f26\",applicationID:\"772317073\"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:\"bam.nr-data.net\",errorBeacon:\"bam.nr-data.net\",licenseKey:\"97f8f67f26\",applicationID:\"772317073\",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{\"use strict\";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error(\"All info objects require an agent identifier!\");if(!a[e])throw new Error(\"Info for \".concat(e,\" was never set\"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error(\"All info objects require an agent identifier!\");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],\"info\")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:\"[data-nr-block]\",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:\"*\",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return\"nr-block\"},get ignoreClass(){return\"nr-ignore\"},get maskTextClass(){return\"nr-mask\"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=\",\".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error(\"All configuration objects require an agent identifier!\");if(!f[e])throw new Error(\"Configuration for \".concat(e,\" was never set\"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error(\"All configuration objects require an agent identifier!\");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],\"config\")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error(\"All configuration objects require an agent identifier!\");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split(\".\"),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||\"object\"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)(\"Setting a Configurable requires an object as input\");if(!t||\"object\"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)(\"Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties\");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{\"object\"==typeof e[a]&&\"object\"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)(\"An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable\",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)(\"An error occured while setting a Configurable\",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n=\"1.236.0\",i=\"PROD\",o=\"CDN\"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n=\"undefined\"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i=\"undefined\"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&(\"undefined\"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||\"undefined\"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:\"undefined\"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&(\"undefined\"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||\"undefined\"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=\"\"+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&\"undefined\"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\\s](\\d+\\.\\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:\"\",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if(\"object\"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)(\"shared context requires an object as input\");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)(\"An error occured while setting SharedContext\",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:\"\",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:\"feature\";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s=\"nr@context\";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&\"object\"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;f<d;f++)s[f].apply(a,r);var l=T()[c[e]];return l&&l.push([p,e,r,a]),a}}function b(e,t){n[e]=w(e).concat(t)}function y(e,t){var r=n[e];if(r)for(var i=0;i {r.d(t,{E:()=>n,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get(\"handle\");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o=\"feature\"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener(\"test\",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener(\"test\",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i=\"xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx\";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split(\"\").map((e=>\"x\"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):\"y\"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join(\"\")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n=\"NRBA\",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||\"\").indexOf(\"data:\"))return{protocol:\"data\"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement(\"a\"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split(\"://\");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split(\"/\")[0].split(\"@\").pop().split(\":\")[1]),o.port&&\"0\"!==o.port||(o.port=\"https\"===a[0]?\"443\":\"80\"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],\"/\"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname=\"/\"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||\":\"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),\"/\"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){\"function\"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn(\"New Relic: \".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&\"object\"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)(\"feat-\"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)(\"block-\"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)(\"rumresp-\"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)(\"feat-\"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)(\"rumresp-\"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if(\"object\"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit(\"internal-error\",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return\"undefined\"==typeof document||\"complete\"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)(\"load\",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)(\"DOMContentLoaded\",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:\"bam.nr-data.net\",errorBeacon:\"bam.nr-data.net\"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)(\"visibilitychange\",(function(){if(t)return void(\"hidden\"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i=\"nr@original\";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n=\"\");var a,s,c,u=\"-\"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,\"fetch\",y),t.on(y+\"end\",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get(\"content-length\");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+\"done\",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+\"done\",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=[\"pushState\",\"replaceState\"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get(\"history\")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,\"-\")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=[\"appendChild\",\"insertBefore\",\"replaceChild\"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get(\"jsonp\")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\\w+)(\\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,\"dom-\"),t.on(\"dom-start\",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||\"string\"!=typeof e.nodeName||\"script\"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if(\"function\"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if(\"function\"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit(\"jsonp-end\",[],d),e.removeEventListener(\"load\",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener(\"error\",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit(\"jsonp-error\",[],d),t.emit(\"jsonp-end\",[],d),e.removeEventListener(\"load\",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener(\"error\",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],\"cb-\",d),e.addEventListener(\"load\",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener(\"error\",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit(\"new-jsonp\",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get(\"mutation\")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,\"fn-\")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get(\"promise\")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,\"executor-\",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,\"name\",{value:\"Promise\"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),[\"all\",\"race\"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a(\"all\"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit(\"propagate\",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),[\"resolve\",\"reject\"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit(\"propagate\",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,[\"onreadystatechange\"],\"fn-\",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit(\"xhr-resolved\",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,\"fn-\",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,\"-xhr-\",E),r.on(\"send-xhr-start\",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on(\"open-xhr-start\",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on(\"fn-end\",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i=\"nr@seenError\"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i=\"sm\",o=\"cm\",a=\"storeSupportabilityMetrics\",s=\"storeEventMetrics\"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i=\"firstbyte\",o=\"domcontent\",a=\"windowload\"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i=\"bstResource\",o=\"resource\",a=\"-start\",s=\"-end\",c=\"fn\"+a,u=\"fn\"+s,d=\"pushState\"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=[\"click\",\"submit\",\"keypress\",\"keydown\",\"keyup\",\"change\"],a=999,s=\"fn-start\",c=\"fn-end\",u=\"cb-start\",d=\"api-ixn-\",f=\"remaining\",l=\"interaction\",h=\"spaNode\",g=\"jsonpNode\",p=\"fetch-start\",m=\"fetch-done\",v=\"fetch-body-\",b=\"jsonp-end\",y=n.Yu.ST,w=\"-start\",x=\"-end\",A=\"-body\",E=\"cb\"+x,T=\"jsTime\",_=\"fetch\"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();[\"setErrorHandler\",\"finished\",\"addToTrace\",\"inlineHit\",\"addRelease\",\"addPageAction\",\"setCurrentRouteName\",\"setPageViewName\",\"setCustomAttribute\",\"interaction\",\"noticeError\",\"setUserId\"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,\"api\");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get(\"tracer\"),m=\"api-\",v=m+\"ixn-\";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?\"session\":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}[\"setErrorHandler\",\"finished\",\"addToTrace\",\"inlineHit\",\"addRelease\"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,\"api\"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,\"addPageAction\",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,\"routeName\",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if(\"string\"==typeof t)return\"/\"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t=\"/\"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||\"http://custom.transaction\")+t,x(m,\"setPageViewName\",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if(\"string\"==typeof e){if([\"string\",\"number\"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,\"setCustomAttribute\",r);(0,f.Z)(\"Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided.\"))}else(0,f.Z)(\"Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided.\"))},h.setUserId=function(e){if(\"string\"==typeof e||null===e)return b(\"enduser.id\",e,\"setUserId\",!0);(0,f.Z)(\"Failed to execute setUserId.\\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided.\"))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a=\"function\"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+\"tracer\",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?\"\":\"no-\")+\"fn-start\",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit(\"fn-err\",[arguments,this,\"string\"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit(\"fn-end\",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,[\"API/\"+t+\"/called\"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,\"api\")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)(\"Downloading runtime APIs failed...\")))}return[\"actionText\",\"setName\",\"setAttribute\",\"save\",\"ignore\",\"onEnd\",\"getContext\",\"end\",\"get\"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){\"string\"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,[\"API/noticeError/called\"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)(\"err\",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,\"api\"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,\"exposed\"),(0,h.EZ)(\"activatedFeatures\",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:\"ajax\",jserrors:\"jserrors\",metrics:\"metrics\",pageAction:\"page_action\",pageViewEvent:\"page_view_event\",pageViewTiming:\"page_view_timing\",sessionReplay:\"session_replay\",sessionTrace:\"session_trace\",spa:\"spa\"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:\"page_action-aggregate\",147:\"metrics-aggregate\",242:\"session-manager\",317:\"jserrors-aggregate\",348:\"page_view_timing-aggregate\",412:\"lazy-feature-loader\",439:\"async-api\",538:\"recorder\",590:\"session_replay-aggregate\",675:\"compressor\",733:\"session_trace-aggregate\",786:\"page_view_event-aggregate\",873:\"spa-aggregate\",898:\"ajax-aggregate\"}[e]||e)+\".\"+{78:\"ac76d497\",147:\"3dc53903\",148:\"1a20d5fe\",242:\"2a64278a\",317:\"49e41428\",348:\"bd6de33a\",412:\"2f55ce66\",439:\"30bd804e\",538:\"1b18459f\",590:\"cf0efb30\",675:\"ae9f91a8\",733:\"83105561\",786:\"06482edd\",860:\"03a8b7a5\",873:\"e6b09d52\",898:\"998ef92b\"}[e]+\"-1.236.0.min.js\"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t=\"NRBA:\",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName(\"script\"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:\"timeout\",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{\"undefined\"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:\"Module\"}),Object.defineProperty(e,\"__esModule\",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p=\"https://js-agent.newrelic.com/\",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&(\"load\"===r.type?\"missing\":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message=\"Loading chunk \"+t+\" failed.\\n(\"+o+\": \"+a+\")\",s.name=\"ChunkLoadError\",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),\"chunk-\"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,\"\".concat(e,\".enabled\"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,\"privacy.cookies_enabled\");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)(\"A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.\",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,\"aggregate\");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)(\"Downloading and initializing \".concat(this.featureName,\" failed...\"),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,\"session_trace.enabled\")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),(\"undefined\"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&\"undefined\"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)(\"timing\",[\"load\",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if(\"count\"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r=\"\",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean(\"hidden\"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)(\"docHidden\",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)(\"pagehide\",(()=>(0,s.p)(\"winPagehide\",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem(\"__nr_flags\").split(\",\"),console&&\"function\"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf(\"dev\")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf(\"nr_dev\")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on(\"internal-error\",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on(\"fn-err\",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z(\"NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE\"),z(\"flags: \"+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(\", \")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on(\"fn-start\",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on(\"fn-err\",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)(\"err\",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on(\"fn-end\",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on(\"internal-error\",(function(t){(0,s.p)(\"ierr\",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener(\"unhandledrejection\",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t=\"Unhandled Promise Rejection: \";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)(\"err\",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){\"function\"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)(\"err\",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)(\"ierr\",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||\"Uncaught error with no additional information\",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q=\"nr@id\";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||\"object\"!==t&&\"function\"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if(\"string\"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if(\"object\"==typeof e){if(\"undefined\"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if(\"undefined\"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!(\"undefined\"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||\"\").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||\"\").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||\"\").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return\"00-\"+t+\"-\"+e+\"-01\"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+\"@nr=0-1-\"+r+\"-\"+n+\"-\"+e+\"----\"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!(\"function\"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:\"Browser\",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,\"distributed_tracing\")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener(\"load\",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener(\"progress\",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader(\"X-NewRelic-ID\",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader(\"newrelic\",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader(\"traceparent\",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader(\"tracestate\",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{\"abort\"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),(\"load\"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||\"function\"!=typeof t.onload)&&\"function\"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit(\"internal-error\",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set(\"newrelic\",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set(\"traceparent\",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set(\"tracestate\",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;\"string\"==typeof i?r=i:\"object\"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&\"object\"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(\"\"+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||\"GET\")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,\"string\"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i(\"xhr\",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,\"fetch\"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||\"agent\")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)(\"Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.\")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t=\"features\";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)(\"\".concat(t.featureName,\" is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (\").concat((0,D.P)(n),\"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...\")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)(\"Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -\",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)(\"bst\",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)(\"bstHist\",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get(\"tracer\"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get(\"events\"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit(\"newURL\",[\"\"+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,\"xhr-resolved\"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer([\"setTimeout\"+le,\"clearTimeout\"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,\"new-xhr\",\"send-xhr\"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+\"-done\",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer([\"newURL\"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer([\"propagate\",be,ge,\"executor-err\",\"resolve\"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,\"no-\"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer([\"new-jsonp\",\"cb-start\",\"jsonp-error\",\"jsonp-end\"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+\"-done\"),y(a,\"new-jsonp\"),y(a,\"jsonp-end\"),y(a,\"cb-start\"),h.on(\"pushState-end\",m),h.on(\"replaceState-end\",m),window.addEventListener(\"hashchange\",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener(\"load\",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener(\"popstate\",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:\"spa\"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); const cookieDomain = window.location.hostname; const tld = buildTLD(); function buildTLD() { const domainParts = cookieDomain.split('.'); while (domainParts.length > 2) { domainParts.shift(); } return domainParts.join('.'); } function deleteCookie(cookieName) { if (!cookieName) { return; } const cookiePath = (cookieName.startsWith('retraction_warning_') || cookieName.startsWith('version_warning_')) ? '/articles/' + cookieName : '/'; // Yes, these three slightly different ways to try and remove cookies are necessary document.cookie = cookieName + '=; path=' + cookiePath + '; domain=' + cookieDomain + '; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT;'; document.cookie = cookieName + '=; path=' + cookiePath + '; domain=.' + tld + '; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT;'; document.cookie = cookieName + '=; path=' + cookiePath + '; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT;'; } function deleteGroupCookies(group) { if (!group) { return; } const domainData = OneTrust.GetDomainData(), cookies = domainData.Groups.filter(cookieGroup => cookieGroup.OptanonGroupId === group)[0].Cookies; cookies.forEach(cookie => deleteCookie(cookie.Name)); } function OptanonWrapper() { const cookieConsentGroups = []; for (group of OneTrust.GetDomainData().Groups) { cookieConsentGroups.push(group.OptanonGroupId); } OneTrust.OnConsentChanged(function(e) { const cookieConsentActiveGroups = OnetrustActiveGroups.split(',').filter(activeGroup => activeGroup); cookieConsentGroups.forEach(group => { if (!cookieConsentActiveGroups.includes(group)) { deleteGroupCookies(group); }; }); }); } window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://hrbopenresearch.org/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'HRB'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is \"complete\" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event \"completion\" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', \"PixelInitialized\", {}); Skip to content HRB Open Research file_upload Submit your research search clear search menu close clear Search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Data Guidelines Prepublication Checks Production Process Article Processing Charges Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers National Steering Group Policies Glossary FAQs Contact Blog My Account Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { \"@context\": \"https://schema.org\", \"@type\": \"ScholarlyArticle\", \"mainEntityOfPage\": { \"@type\": \"WebPage\", \"@id\": \"https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64\" }, \"headline\": \"Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a...\", \"datePublished\": \"2023-11-13T11:46:03\", \"dateModified\": \"2025-07-28T12:35:23\", \"author\": [ { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Brona Mulligan\" }, { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Maeve Reilly\" }, { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Ahmeda Ali\" }, { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Conor Murphy\" }, { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Sam McGlynn\" }, { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Mohammed Alam\" }, { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Frank Doyle\" }, { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Seamus Cotter\" }, { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Laura Heavey\" }, { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Kate Brain\" }, { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Nicole Rankin\" }, { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Grace McCutchan\" }, { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Patrick Redmond\" } ], \"publisher\": { \"@type\": \"Organization\", \"name\": \"HRB Open Research\", \"logo\": { \"@type\": \"ImageObject\", \"url\": \"https://hrbopenresearch.org/img/AMP/HRB_image.png\", \"height\": 566, \"width\": 60 } }, \"image\": { \"@type\": \"ImageObject\", \"url\": \"https://hrbopenresearch.org/img/AMP/HRB_image.png\", \"height\": 1200, \"width\": 127 }, \"description\": \" Background Lung cancer is a significant cause of cancer-related mortality globally, with early detection through screening critical to improving patient outcomes. However, recruiting high-risk individuals, particularly in deprived populations, for screening remains a considerable challenge. This study aims to co-design a targeted recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening, tailored to the specific needs and experiences of high-risk individuals, in collaboration with a Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel and expert stakeholders in Ireland. Methods We will employ a mixed-methods design guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex interventions. Our approach will integrate systematic review findings on screening participation interventions, evaluation of the recruitment strategy's feasibility in an Irish context, and the application of behavioural science frameworks. The target population includes individuals aged 55–74 who reside in highly deprived areas and are at high risk of developing lung cancer based on the National Lung Screening Trial criteria, as well as those eligible for our Lung Health Check trial who met equivalent risk thresholds. Conclusion This co-designed recruitment strategy will combine evidence-based research, local context understanding, and stakeholder input to develop a solution that is both scientifically robust and tailored to the target population's needs. This patient-centred approach aims to increase the potential for successful implementation of lung cancer screening programs, thereby improving early detection and patient outcomes. \" } { \"@context\": \"http://schema.org\", \"@type\": \"BreadcrumbList\", \"itemListElement\": [ { \"@type\": \"ListItem\", \"position\": \"1\", \"item\": { \"@id\": \"https://hrbopenresearch.org/\", \"name\": \"Home\" } }, { \"@type\": \"ListItem\", \"position\": \"2\", \"item\": { \"@id\": \"https://hrbopenresearch.org/browse/articles\", \"name\": \"Browse\" } }, { \"@type\": \"ListItem\", \"position\": \"3\", \"item\": { \"@id\": \"https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64\", \"name\": \"Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk...\" } } ] } Home Browse Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Mulligan B, Reilly M, Ali A et al. Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13793.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Study Protocol Revised Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Brona Mulligan https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8252-5200 1 , Maeve Reilly https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1363-1680 1 , Ahmeda Ali 1 , [...] Conor Murphy https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1166-0207 1 , Sam McGlynn 1 , Mohammed Alam 1 , Frank Doyle https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3785-7433 2 , Seamus Cotter https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5680-2772 3 , Laura Heavey 4 , Kate Brain 5 , Nicole Rankin 6 , Grace McCutchan 5 , Patrick Redmond 1 Brona Mulligan https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8252-5200 1 , Maeve Reilly https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1363-1680 1 , [...] Ahmeda Ali 1 , Conor Murphy https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1166-0207 1 , Sam McGlynn 1 , Mohammed Alam 1 , Frank Doyle https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3785-7433 2 , Seamus Cotter https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5680-2772 3 , Laura Heavey 4 , Kate Brain 5 , Nicole Rankin 6 , Grace McCutchan 5 , Patrick Redmond 1 PUBLISHED 28 Jul 2025 Author details Author details 1 Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, Dublin, Ireland 2 Department of Health Psychology, School of Population Health, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, Dublin, Ireland 3 Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), Irish Lung Cancer Community, Dublin, Ireland 4 National Screening Service, Health Service Executive (HSE), Dublin, Ireland 5 Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK 6 School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Brona Mulligan Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing Maeve Reilly Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation Ahmeda Ali Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Conor Murphy Roles: Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Sam McGlynn Roles: Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing Mohammed Alam Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Frank Doyle Roles: Writing – Review & Editing Seamus Cotter Roles: Resources Laura Heavey Roles: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Kate Brain Roles: Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Nicole Rankin Roles: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Grace McCutchan Roles: Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Patrick Redmond Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background Lung cancer is a significant cause of cancer-related mortality globally, with early detection through screening critical to improving patient outcomes. However, recruiting high-risk individuals, particularly in deprived populations, for screening remains a considerable challenge. This study aims to co-design a targeted recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening, tailored to the specific needs and experiences of high-risk individuals, in collaboration with a Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel and expert stakeholders in Ireland. Methods We will employ a mixed-methods design guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex interventions. Our approach will integrate systematic review findings on screening participation interventions, evaluation of the recruitment strategy's feasibility in an Irish context, and the application of behavioural science frameworks. The target population includes individuals aged 55–74 who reside in highly deprived areas and are at high risk of developing lung cancer based on the National Lung Screening Trial criteria, as well as those eligible for our Lung Health Check trial who met equivalent risk thresholds. Conclusion This co-designed recruitment strategy will combine evidence-based research, local context understanding, and stakeholder input to develop a solution that is both scientifically robust and tailored to the target population's needs. This patient-centred approach aims to increase the potential for successful implementation of lung cancer screening programs, thereby improving early detection and patient outcomes. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Lung neoplasms; Primary Health Care; Screening; Implementation Science; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice Corresponding Author(s) Brona Mulligan ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Brona Mulligan Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Mulligan B et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Mulligan B, Reilly M, Ali A et al. Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13793.2 ) First published: 13 Nov 2023, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13793.1 ) Latest published: 28 Jul 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13793.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 This updated protocol incorporates key revisions to better align the co-designed recruitment strategy with the ongoing Lung Health Check (LHC) pilot lung cancer screening trial currently being conducted in Ireland. For the qualitative interview stage, inclusion and exclusion criteria are clarified and aligned with those used in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and LHC guidelines, specifying age (55–74 years), smoking history, and risk thresholds (PLCOm2012 >1.51% or LLPv3 ≥2.5%) to identify individuals at high risk of lung cancer. Therefore, the term “high-risk” now reflects individual-level clinical risk. As such, we believe the concern about the ambiguity of the term “high-risk” has been addressed by clarifying the inclusion criteria. Recruitment strategies have since been broadened to include settings beyond general practice. Purposive sampling at the interview stage will be employed across multiple recruitment channels, including individuals attending the LHC mobile clinic in socioeconomically deprived areas, participants at LHC community engagement events, eligible patients from participating general practices, and through snowball sampling from participants. Minor adjustments will be made to the interview schedule to improve clarity, enhance participant comfort, and elicit deeper insights into barriers to screening. In response to reviewer feedback, this version includes further detail on incentives for Public and Patient Involvement (PPI), while noting that study participants will not receive incentives. The Irish Lung Cancer Community is also described to provide contextual background. Finally, the rationale for including recruitment as part of a broader strategy is clarified, alongside potential limitations associated with focusing on highly deprived areas. Additionally, the author list has been updated to reflect contributions to the updated protocol. This updated protocol incorporates key revisions to better align the co-designed recruitment strategy with the ongoing Lung Health Check (LHC) pilot lung cancer screening trial currently being conducted in Ireland. For the qualitative interview stage, inclusion and exclusion criteria are clarified and aligned with those used in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and LHC guidelines, specifying age (55–74 years), smoking history, and risk thresholds (PLCOm2012 >1.51% or LLPv3 ≥2.5%) to identify individuals at high risk of lung cancer. Therefore, the term “high-risk” now reflects individual-level clinical risk. As such, we believe the concern about the ambiguity of the term “high-risk” has been addressed by clarifying the inclusion criteria. Recruitment strategies have since been broadened to include settings beyond general practice. Purposive sampling at the interview stage will be employed across multiple recruitment channels, including individuals attending the LHC mobile clinic in socioeconomically deprived areas, participants at LHC community engagement events, eligible patients from participating general practices, and through snowball sampling from participants. Minor adjustments will be made to the interview schedule to improve clarity, enhance participant comfort, and elicit deeper insights into barriers to screening. In response to reviewer feedback, this version includes further detail on incentives for Public and Patient Involvement (PPI), while noting that study participants will not receive incentives. The Irish Lung Cancer Community is also described to provide contextual background. Finally, the rationale for including recruitment as part of a broader strategy is clarified, alongside potential limitations associated with focusing on highly deprived areas. Additionally, the author list has been updated to reflect contributions to the updated protocol. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Abbie Begnaud See the authors' detailed response to the review by Gaston Arnolda See the authors' detailed response to the review by Mario Mascalchi READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Lung cancer is a significant global health concern, accounting for a substantial proportion of cancer-related mortality worldwide 1 . Despite advances in treatment options, the overall prognosis for patients with lung cancer remains poor, primarily due to late-stage diagnosis 2 . Emphasising the importance of early detection, screening programs have been identified as a key factor in improving patient outcomes, including overall survival rates 3 . Challenges in lung cancer screening programmes Screening programs, while instrumental in early detection, come with their own set of challenges. A major hurdle lies in the recruitment of eligible individuals, particularly those classified as high risk. Previous trials employing population-level approaches to recruitment 4 , 5 have suffered from low participation rates. Underrepresentation of high-risk participants and participants from low socioeconomic (SES) background have been a critical challenge to lung cancer screening 6 – 8 . In contrast, the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT) and the Manchester Lung Health Check both used a targeted recruitment strategy, resulting in participation rates of 53% and 27% respectively 9 , 10 . Although the Manchester Lung Health Check participation rate may be comparable to other trials, it is worth noting that the proportion of participants ranked in the lowest deprivation quintile was 75%, a marked increase from the overall UK Lung Screen trial 7 , 10 . Evidence regarding the impact of specific recruitment strategies on participation in cancer screening trials is limited. For examples, in the LSUT study, a reminder letter with a pre-scheduled appointment increased participation among non-responders by 24% 9 . Similar strategies such as pre-invitation letters, scheduled appointments, and reminder letters have modestly increased participation in breast and colorectal cancer screening, albeit with varying success rates 11 – 14 . These studies demonstrate the impact that specific recruitment strategies can add to baseline recruitment rates, but they were not targeted to a specific population. Understanding high-risk individuals Due in part to the prevalence of smoking in deprived areas, individuals from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are often at a higher risk of developing lung cancer 15 – 17 . This demographic is consistently underrepresented in screening programs 18 , leading to disparities in lung cancer outcomes, with socioeconomically disadvantaged groups experiencing higher mortality rates 19 . Barriers to screening participation are multifaceted and complex, as suggested by various systematic and literature reviews 20 – 22 . According to Lin et al. , these barriers can be categorised into individual, healthcare system, and social/environmental categories 22 . Several potentially modifiable factors have been identified, which could be strategically addressed in recruitment interventions. These encompass health beliefs, desires to quit smoking, self-efficacy beliefs, concerns about lung cancer, and prompts or recommendations from healthcare professionals 22 . Moreover, Lin et al. and Lam et al. underscore the role of psychological factors, including apprehension and fatalistic attitudes, as barriers to screening uptake. Schütte et al. further highlights an inverse correlation between screening uptake and poor self-reported health 20 – 22 . As such, efforts to alleviate these anxieties could complement strategies designed to foster engagement and awareness, subsequently encouraging participation among these high-risk individuals. Tailored recruitment strategies Addressing these challenges requires a targeted recruitment strategy, grounded in evidence-based practices and tailored to the unique needs and preferences of high-risk groups within an Irish context. Previous strategies aimed at increasing screening attendance have been primarily invitational or proactive. The LSUT trial and the Lung Health Check trials in the UK used invitational strategies, sending letter invitations, reminders and, in the LSUT, pamphlets with low-burden information about screening through direct mail 9 , 10 . The UK Bowel Cancer Screening programme trialled four different invitational strategies to decrease the socioeconomic gradient between screening participants and found enhanced reminder letters to have a modest benefit 23 . Proactive recruitment strategies have been more commonly trialled in non-lung screening programmes such as cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening. Strategies such as flagging patient files to encourage their general practitioners to discuss screening with them or sending invitations with pre-scheduled appointments have worked to enhance general participation 24 , 25 . At least two lung cancer screening trials have effectively assigned participant “navigators” to guide participants through the screening process; from calling to invite participants and checking their eligibility to booking their appointments 26 , 27 . A systematic review of lung cancer screening implementation supports the view that recruitment should be targeted to the most high-risk population and that the methodology for achieving this must be tailored to the local circumstance 28 . However, the review also highlights that there is currently insufficient evidence to show which methods will best enhance screening uptake, and that more research into planning recruitment strategies is needed to identify how best to attract high-risk populations 28 . In response to these identified gaps, this study aims to develop a recruitment strategy specifically designed for high-risk individuals within the Irish context. We hypothesize that integrating multiple recruitment modalities will maximize participation and engagement in lung cancer screening. Through co-design and rigorous evaluation, this study aims to identify the most effective approaches for reaching and engaging these populations. Patient and Public Involvement Engaging patients and the public in the design and implementation of research ensures interventions are relevant, acceptable, and effective for the target population. In the context of lung cancer screening, patients can provide invaluable insights into participation barriers and potential solutions 29 . Hence, this study will incorporate a Patient and Public Involvement group to offer insights into the feasibility and compatibility of the recruitment strategy within the local healthcare context 30 , 31 . Aims and objectives The overall aim of this study is to co-design an evidence-based recruitment strategy that enhances participation in lung cancer screening among high-risk individuals. This strategy will be specifically tailored to the unique needs and experiences of high-risk individuals in Ireland. This study is being conducted in parallel with the LHC pilot trial, which is operating in regions with relatively high deprivation and lung cancer incidence. To achieve this we have established the following specific objectives: Evidence synthesis: We will draw from the knowledge gathered through systematic reviews and observational studies to identify interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness in enhancing screening participation 19 , 23 , 32 – 34 . Addressing barriers: In collaboration with high-risk individuals eligible for screening, we will identify and address the barriers to participation that are unique to the Irish context. This approach will ensure the recruitment strategy is practical and directly relevant to the target population. Theoretical grounding: We will ground the recruitment strategy in behavioural science frameworks, which will provide a theoretical basis for understanding health behaviours. This will guide the design of interventions aimed at altering these behaviours to improve screening participation 35 Feasibility assessment: We will assess the feasibility of the recruitment strategy in the Irish context, employing the APEASE Criteria. This evaluation framework will ensure the intervention is affordable, practical, effective, acceptable, safe, and equitable 36 . Methods Ethics Ethical approval will be requested from RCSI Research Ethics Committee. We have routine systems in place to offer assistance and follow-up any patient who is distressed by health-related research. This includes signposting opportunities for support plus personal follow-up at participant request. Patient and Public Involvement Irish Lung Cancer Community (ILCC) Framework and reporting guidance This research employs a mixed-methods design with the aim of co-creating a targeted recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening, in collaboration with a PPI panel and expert stakeholders. By embedding this work within the ongoing LHC trial, we aim to generate actionable, context-specific insights that can inform the design of more equitable lung cancer screening programmes. The development and evaluation of the intervention will be guided by the Medical Research Council's (MRC) framework for complex interventions 30 . The study will also adhere to guidelines for formulating complex interventions to enhance health and healthcare 30 , and will follow the GUIDED reporting guidance for intervention development studies in health research 37 . In accordance with the recommendations from a recent multidisciplinary expert panel review, the study will incorporate co-design methods using an Experience Based Co-Design approach 38 . Research-refining interviews with screening-eligible participants will be conducted to prioritise the issues specific to an Irish context. Intervention co-development workshops with expert and PPI participants will be conducted to build upon existing research evidence. These workshops will generate iterative versions of a recruitment tool until consensus on a final tool is reached 39 , 40 . The feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment tool will also be evaluated at these workshops. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be employed to assess factors likely to impact the intervention’s implementation and effectiveness. The RE-AIM framework will be used to enhance the external validity of the project and to orientate the data collection in a manner conducive to the future implementation of the final intervention 41 . Research team and context The research team is interdisciplinary, comprising individuals with diverse expertise: patients, academics from various disciplines (public health, epidemiology, health psychology, social sciences), healthcare professionals, and policy makers. This ensures a comprehensive approach to the development of a recruitment strategy. The study will be conducted in Ireland, a country with a healthcare system that includes both public and private sectors. The government body responsible for overseeing the public health system is the Health Service Executive (HSE), and approximately 47% of Irish citizens are covered by private health insurance. However, in May 2021, the Irish government approved the Sláintecare Implementation Strategy and Action Plan 2021 to 2023, aiming to transform this dual system to a universal healthcare structure. The National Cancer Control Programme (NCCP) is the HSE's cancer-specific division, accountable for the organisation and governance of publicly-funded cancer services in the country. Ireland is currently grappling with significant lung cancer morbidity and mortality. Lung cancer is the fourth most common cancer, with roughly 2,749 people diagnosed each year as of 2020 42 . Mortality rates remain high, largely due to late-stage diagnosis. The potential benefits of lung cancer screening have been recognised at the national level. Advocacy, charitable organisations, and public representatives have proposed the introduction of a community-based lung cancer screening program as a proactive approach to address the country's lung cancer burden. In preparation for this screening program, a robust recruitment strategy is needed to address inequalities that may arise from inequitable participation. Target population This study is being conducted alongside an ongoing pilot clinical trial of lung cancer screening: the LHC trial 43 . The LHC trial is being deployed in communities within a relatively deprived Irish region with higher lung cancer incidence: North Dublin and the North East. Individual deprivation will also be assessed by educational attainment and employment status. This will ensure that individuals from deprived areas, defined as Electoral Divisions (EDs) categorised as “Disadvantaged” to “Extremely Disadvantaged” by the Pobal HP Deprivation Index, 2022 44 , will be predominantly, although not exclusively, included. This population is particularly important to target for lung cancer screening due to their elevated risk and increased vulnerability. These individuals are often underrepresented in healthcare research and are less likely to participate in screening programs, despite being at the highest risk of adverse outcomes. By focusing on this population, our study aims to design a recruitment strategy that is tailored to their specific needs and experiences, thereby improving their engagement in future lung cancer screening programs in Ireland. While our target population criteria are primarily based on age, smoking status, and socioeconomic factors, we are aware of the potential for cultural diversity within this group. Therefore, our recruitment strategy and subsequent intervention will be designed with cultural sensitivity in mind, ensuring that we respect and address the unique needs and experiences of diverse cultural groups within our target population. Study design The intervention development will follow a four-step process: 1. Establishing the evidence base : An umbrella review of previous research on screening participation interventions will form the evidence base 45 . The findings from this umbrella review, alongside other relevant studies will be presented to the stakeholder panel for feedback, which will be used to develop an initial version of the recruitment tool. 2. Identification of Barriers and Facilitators : We will conduct in-depth interviews with a sample of the target population to gain insights into their experiences and perspectives, thereby informing the development of the recruitment strategy. 3. Modelling intervention processes and outcomes : We will map the themes identified in steps 1 and 2 to the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation framework within the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to draft a cohesive recruitment strategy 35 . The research team and expert stakeholders will conceptualise the behaviour change mechanism and identify measurable processes and outcomes. 4. Feasibility and acceptability : We will present the initial draft of the recruitment tool to stakeholders and the PPI panel for review and refinement, assessing its feasibility and acceptability. The study outline is described in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Logic model of proposed intervention. Sampling, data collection & analysis The target population will be recruited from primary care practices and community centers involved in the ongoing LHC trial, which is being delivered in socioeconomically deprived regions of North Dublin and the North East. Eligibility is based on the NLST criteria: participants must be aged 55–74 with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years. Former smokers must have quit within the past 15 years. Individuals enrolled in our ongoing LHC trial are also eligible, given the trial's inclusion criteria – aged 55–74 with either a PLCOm2012 risk score above 1.5% or an LLPv3 score of 2.5% or higher. Exclusion criteria include those with a current malignancy, lung pathology, life-limiting illness, or inability to provide informed consent in English. While recruitment will primarily focus on high-risk individuals from disadvantaged communities, it will not be limited exclusively to them. We will collect demographic information including age, gender, smoking history, and socioeconomic status, assessed using the Trinity National Deprivation Index (2016) 46 education level, and employment status. The audio files of interviews will be de-identified and transcribed. NVivo 10 or higher (QSR international) will be used for analysis. For analytical rigour, 40% of the transcripts will be independently double coded by another researcher. We will use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to classify the themes that emerge 47 . Workshops involving stakeholders, the PPI panel, and healthcare professionals will form the final evidence base to evaluate and refine the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment strategy. The discussions during the workshops will be audio-recorded and supplemented with field notes taken by the research team. PPI The PPI group will include individuals and/or families with experience of lung cancer, as well as members of the target lung screening population. Some members may be affiliated with the ILCC. Mr Cotter from the ILCC will support the formation of a small panel (4–5 members) and act as a liaison with the research team to coordinate meetings. The PPI panel will provide input on the interview topic guide and offer feedback during the intervention development process. Interview topic guide design Developing a topic guide based on behavioural science frameworks will be a collaborative endeavour. The PPI group will engage in an initial brainstorming workshop, followed by a series of feedback sessions, and they will also be invited to provide written input to refine the guide. Training and support All PPI members, regardless of their background, will be offered training on the research methodology, ethics, and behavioural science principles. This is to ensure that everyone is adequately equipped to provide meaningful insights and feedback throughout the project's lifecycle. Regular support, both technical and psychological, will be available to facilitate their active participation. Schedule of meetings A proposed series of meetings will include: Introduction session: Overview, objectives, and roles. Topic guide workshop: Brainstorming and initial draft creation. Bi-monthly collaborative meetings: Progress updates, discussions, and feedback sessions. Final review meeting: Reflecting on results and laying out the dissemination roadmap. Oversight and dissemination All PPI members will be encouraged to actively partake in the research dissemination process. Opportunities to co-author research outputs, present findings at conferences, and engage in outreach activities will be provided. This inclusive strategy has been shaped with valuable guidance from the RCSI PPI Ignite Office Team. Expert panel An expert panel consisting of primary care clinicians, psychologists, and policymakers will be convened to contribute specific expertise to this project. Each panel member has been selected based on their roles and experiences in the context of lung cancer screening. They bring critical insights that can significantly influence the future implementation of the lung cancer screening trial. The expert panel will be actively involved in various stages of the study. They will provide feedback on the evidence gathered from systematic reviews, participate in workshops to discuss and refine the recruitment strategy, and contribute to the design of the recruitment tool based on their professional experience and understanding of the challenges and opportunities in lung cancer screening. Furthermore, they will provide critical insight into the likely barriers and facilitators for implementing the recruitment strategy in a real-world context. To ensure a diverse range of perspectives, the Expert Panel is drawn from various sources. These include professional networks with a wealth of knowledge and experience, representative organisations that provide a broad societal perspective, and patient advocacy groups that offer the unique and essential viewpoint of those most directly affected by lung cancer. Step 1: Evidence gathering The initial phase of our research will involve an extensive review of existing literature including systematic reviews, observational studies, and qualitative research on interventions aimed at promoting participation in screening programs within general practice. This study follows a comprehensive synthesis of systematic reviews conducted earlier by our team 45 . The outcomes of these reviews will be shared in a meeting with key stakeholders. Factors which the review has identified as positively influencing participation in screening will be presented to the stakeholders. Stakeholder feedback will be considered, and a decision regarding which factors should be included in the initial iteration of our recruitment tool will be reached via consensus using a modified Nominal Group Technique, which gives an equal voice to all participants 48 , 49 Step 2: Identification of barriers and facilitators We will conduct a series of in-depth semi-structured interviews with a representative sample of our target population to gauge their attitudes and beliefs towards lung cancer, as well as their likelihood to participate in a screening program. These interviews will consist of standardised, open-ended questions and will be audio-recorded and transcribed with the interviewees’ written informed consent. The interviews will be semi-structured to facilitate the participants giving a full account of their health behaviours in relation to smoking and cancer screening. Demographic data including age, sex, education, employment status and post-code, as well as smoking data (self-reported smoking status, smoking history and maximum number of cigarettes smoked per day). Subsequently, they will be subjected to thematic analysis. Our objective is not to be confined to a predetermined number but to continue interviews until saturation, where no new themes emerge. However, based on our initial estimates, we anticipate engaging with approximately 30 individuals. We will recruit participants from primary care practices and community centers, screen them based on specific inclusion criteria. Eligibility is based on the LHC trial and the NLST criteria. Step 3: Intervention modelling Behavioural science frameworks such as the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW), the Extended Parallel Processing Model, and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) 35 , 43 , 50 will underpin our recruitment strategy. The patterns identified in the first two steps will be aligned with the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation framework within the BCW, and a coherent recruitment intervention strategy will be drafted 35 . A consultation will be held with our expert stakeholders to conceptualise the mechanism of behavioural change and identify behavioural targets, along with measurable processes and outcomes. Step 4: Feasibility and acceptability Once we have an initial draft of the recruitment tool, it will be presented to our key stakeholders and PPI panel in workshops for review. The tool will be refined based on their feedback regarding the acceptability and usability of individual intervention components. This cycle of presentation, feedback, and refinement will continue until we attain agreement on the final intervention package. Workshops In the workshops, we will facilitate monitored discussions in small groups, each comprising no more than five members from our expert stakeholder panel or PPI group. A research team member will guide each group discussion, supplying prompts to stimulate dialogue. Purpose of workshops The workshops will serve as the final stage in consolidating our evidence base, allowing us to evaluate and refine the recruitment strategy's feasibility and acceptability. We will invite participants to one of four workshops, where they will review logic models prepared by the research team. In the style of World Café methodology, participants will reflect on the recruitment intervention's components and how these integrate within existing care pathways 51 . These workshops will also enable us to combine the personal narratives of patients with the clinical insights from our stakeholders. For patients, we will explore factors like burden of care, guideline appropriateness, preferences, and support types. The recurrent themes from these discussions will inform the project's feasibility. We will report our findings using the COREQ framework, ensuring comprehensive and accessible data 52 . The output will be the blueprint for the architecture and content of the final recruitment tool. Workshop structure In the workshops, we will organise small table group discussions. Each table will randomly seat no more than five members from the expert stakeholder panel or PPI group, with members rotating between tables for different discussions. A research team member will be present at each table during the World Café-style workshop to provide discussion prompts. Each table will concurrently discuss the same prompts over three rounds, with each round featuring a new prompt. At the start of each session, we will present a PowerPoint (accompanied by handouts) summarizing findings from Step1–3. Subsequent workshops will begin with brief presentations recapping insights from previous sessions. While the workshops will not undergo pilot testing, they will follow a format similar to that used in previous health intervention co-design processes 39 , 53 . The prompts given for discussion will be mapped to the APEASE criteria to ensure that the implementation of the intervention is considered at every stage of the iterative co-design process 36 . We will hold four workshops in total, with each one building on the insights gleaned from the preceding workshop and featuring unique discussion prompts. Workshop data collection and analysis With the consent of all participants, we will audio record the discussions. The research team will also take field notes during the discussions. We anticipate that each workshop will last approximately one hour. Data saturation will be determined via consensus among the research team members, who will continue table discussions until no new themes emerge. Initial pilot Following the workshops, a preliminary pilot will be embedded in the regional lung health check programme. The proportion of participants who receive the recruitment intervention and subsequently consent to participate in the trial recorded for the duration of the pilot. A reporting system will be established to ensure that key implementers can report any problems with the dissemination, reception or response to the recruitment tool, or any problems with the transition from positive response to the invitation to the LDCT. Participants will have the opportunity to provide feedback on their experience of being recruited via anonymous survey which will be available at their participating GP practice. The pilot test will aim to assess the feasibility of the tool - how well it operates in a real-world setting - as well as its acceptability to patients, which is crucial for its eventual uptake. Feedback collected from the participants in this phase will be used to further optimise the tool and ensure it is both practical and user-friendly before larger scale piloting and ultimately definitive testing. Intervention description At the conclusion of the intervention development process, the final intervention components will be reported according to the TIDieR guidelines to ensure completeness and replicability 54 . We will describe the rationale and theoretical basis for the intervention in detail. We will also list the materials that are required to deliver the intervention and the training materials that are required to train staff in its use. Study status Our present study status indicates that we have duly submitted our ethics application and are presently awaiting their response. Discussion This study represents a significant step forward in the development of an effective recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals. By using a collaborative, evidence-based approach and incorporating insights from patients, public involvement contributors, and expert stakeholders, we hope to enhance the reach and impact of lung cancer screening programs. The recruitment strategy under development has the potential to inform the design of future lung cancer screening programs, not just in Ireland, but also in other countries that may face similar challenges in reaching high-risk populations. Additionally, the evidence gathered in the course of creating this recruitment strategy will add crucial information to a currently limited evidence base on lung cancer screening in Ireland. Dissemination The findings of this study will be disseminated through multiple channels. These include academic journals, presentations at national and international conferences, and reports to relevant health and governmental organisations. In particular, we aim to communicate our findings to the public and to the communities most affected by lung cancer. Limitations There are limitations to this study. We use the Pobal National Deprivation Index to screen members of the target population for low economic status because it is a standardised measure of deprivation specifically created for public health research 44 . However, the most recent update of this index contains data from 2022, which may be out of date. It also may not accurately reflect the individual economic status of each recruited member. We have attempted to mitigate these limitations by including questions about the participants’ highest educational attainment and employment status in the interview. Additionally, much of the existing evidence on recruitment to lung cancer screening that will be reviewed in step 1 to inform the creation of our recruitment strategy is from countries that have conducted lung cancer screening trials. Some of the qualitative research regarding the beliefs and behaviour of smokers may not be directly applicable to our target population due to cultural differences. The in-depth interviews with our target population described in step (2) localise the qualitative evidence and contribute to lung cancer screening recruitment evidence in Ireland. Furthermore, we are also exploring digital methods in parallel work and hypothesize that a hybrid approach, combining primary care recruitment methods with digital self-referral or outreach techniques, may yield the best results in increasing lung cancer screening participation in Ireland. The tool co-developed in this study is designed to meet the specific needs of Ireland’s high-risk populations, particularly those in socioeconomically deprived areas, where a majority are eligible for publicly funded healthcare and are registered with a GP practice 55 . Finally, it is important to acknowledge that prioritizing screening for individuals at highest risk, such as heavy smokers, may be constrained by the prevalence of impaired lung function within this group, which is associated with the development of more aggressive lung cancers and poorer prognoses 56 . While this limitation may attenuate the clinical benefits of early detection, directing screening efforts toward high-risk individuals, especially those from socioeconomically deprived areas, aligns with broader public health objectives aimed at enhancing equity in access to preventive care. Consequently, notwithstanding variability in clinical outcomes, expanding access to screening represents a critical public health imperative. Conclusion This protocol outlines the plan for the co-design of a lung cancer screening recruitment strategy. The outcome of this intervention will enable specific recommendations to be made regarding recruiting participants to maximise the efficacy of a future all-Ireland lung cancer screening programme. Such a programme may give due consideration to targeting groups which are historically underrepresented in health intervention services including screening programmes. Data availability Underlying data No data are associated with this article. Extended data Open Science Framework: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4KMT 57 . This project contains the following extended data: - Participant consent form - PPI Interview Participant Information Leaflet - Interview guide - Workshop plans - Pilot Survey (Anonymous) Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero \"No rights reserved\" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). Faculty Opinions recommended References 1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. : Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68 (6): 394–424. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020; 70 (1): 7–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. : Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose Computed Tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365 (5): 395–409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, et al. : Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382 (6): 503–513. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 5. Field JK, Duffy SW, Baldwin DR, et al. : The UK lung cancer screening trial: a pilot randomised controlled trial of Low-Dose Computed Tomography screening for the early detection of lung cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2016; 20 (40): 1–146. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 6. Hestbech MS, Siersma V, Dirksen A, et al. : Participation bias in a randomised trial of screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2011; 73 (3): 325–331. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. McRonald FE, Yadegarfar G, Baldwin DR, et al. : The UK Lung Screen (UKLS): demographic profile of first 88,897 approaches provides recommendations for population screening. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2014; 7 (3): 362–371. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 8. The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team Writing committee, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. : Baseline characteristics of participants in the randomized National Lung Screening Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102 (23): 1771–1779. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 9. Quaife SL, Ruparel M, Dickson JL, et al. : Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): randomized controlled clinical trial testing targeted invitation materials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020; 201 (8): 965–975. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 10. Crosbie PA, Balata H, Evison M, et al. : Implementing lung cancer screening: baseline results from a community-based ‘Lung Health Check’ pilot in deprived areas of Manchester. Thorax. 2019; 74 (4): 405–409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 11. Libby G, Bray J, Champion J, et al. : Pre-notification increases uptake of colorectal cancer screening in all demographic groups: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Screen. 2011; 18 (1): 24–29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 12. Duffy SW, Myles JP, Maroni R, et al. : Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services. J Med Screen. 2017; 24 (3): 127–145. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 13. Ghimire B, Maroni R, Vulkan D, et al. : Evaluation of a health service adopting proactive approach to reduce high risk of lung cancer: the Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme. Lung Cancer. 2019; 134 : 66–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 14. Hewitson P, Ward AM, Heneghan C, et al. : Primary care endorsement letter and a patient leaflet to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening: results of a factorial randomised trial. Br J Cancer. 2011; 105 (4): 475–480. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 15. Hitchman SC, Fong GT, Zanna MP, et al. : Socioeconomic status and smokers’ number of smoking friends: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) four country survey. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014; 143 : 158–166. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 16. Pea K: The state of tobacco control in Ireland. Dublin: HSE Tobacco Free Ireland Programme; 2022 May [cited 2025 Jul 15]. Reference Source 17. van Loon AJ, Burg J, Goldbohm RA, et al. : Differences in cancer incidence and mortality among socio-economic groups. Scand J Soc Med. 1995; 23 (2): 110–120. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 18. Quaife SL, Forbes LJL, Ramirez AJ, et al. : Recognition of cancer warning signs and anticipated delay in help-seeking in a population sample of adults in the UK. Br J Cancer. 2014; 110 (1): 12–18. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 19. Sedani AE, Davis OC, Clifton SC, et al. : Facilitators and barriers to implementation of lung cancer screening: a framework-driven systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022; 114 (11): 1449–1467. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 20. Lam S, Tammemagi M: Contemporary issues in the implementation of lung cancer screening. Eur Respir Rev. 2021; 30 (161): 200288. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 21. Schütte S, Dietrich D, Montet X, et al. : Participation in lung cancer screening programs: are there gender and social differences? A systematic review. Public Health Rev. 2018; 39 (1): 23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 22. Lin YA, Hong YT, Lin XJ, et al. : Barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung cancer screening: a mixed methods systematic review. Lung Cancer. 2022; 172 : 9–18. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 23. Wardle J, von Wagner C, Kralj-Hans I, et al. : Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2016; 387 (10020): 751–759. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 24. Lönnberg S, Andreassen T, Engesæter B, et al. : Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention. BMJ Open. 2016; 6 (11): e013728. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 25. Bankhead C, Richards SH, Peters TJ, et al. : Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care. J Med Screen. 2001; 8 (2): 99–105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 26. Darling GE, Tammemägi MC, Schmidt H, et al. : Organized Lung Cancer Screening Pilot: informing a province-wide program in Ontario, Canada. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021; 111 (6): 1805–1811. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 27. Percac-Lima S, Ashburner JM, Rigotti NA, et al. : Patient navigation for lung cancer screening among current smokers in community health centers a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Med. 2018; 7 (3): 894–902. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 28. Rankin NM, McWilliams A, Marshall HM: Lung cancer screening implementation: complexities and priorities. Respirology. 2020; 25 (Suppl 2): 5–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 29. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, et al. : Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010; 26 (3): 334–340. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 30. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. : Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008; 337 : a1655. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 31. Dodd RH, Sharman AR, McGregor D, et al. : Education messages and strategies to inform the public, potential screening candidates and healthcare providers about lung cancer screening: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2023; 169 : 107459. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 32. Mandrik O, Tolma E, Zielonke N, et al. : Systematic reviews as a ‘lens of evidence’: determinants of participation in breast cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2021; 28 (2): 70–79. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 33. Marlow LAV, Waller J, Wardle J: Barriers to cervical cancer screening among ethnic minority women: a qualitative study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2015; 41 (4): 248–254. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 34. Tinmouth J, Ritvo P, McGregor SE, et al. : ColonCancerCheck primary care invitation pilot project: family physician perceptions. Can Fam Physician. 2012; 58 (10): e570–7. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text 35. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R: The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011; 6 (1): 42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 36. West R, Michie S, Atkins L, et al. : Achieving behaviour change: a guide for local authorities. London: UCL, November, 2019. Reference Source 37. Duncan E, O'Cathain A, Rousseau N, et al. : Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study. BMJ Open. 2020; 10 (4): e033516. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 38. Kynoch K, Ramis MA: Experience based co-design in acute healthcare services: a scoping review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2019; 17 (1): 3–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 39. Heyhoe J, Reynolds C, Bec R, et al. : The Shared Safety Net Action Plan (SSNAP): a co-designed intervention to reduce delays in cancer diagnosis. Br J Gen Pract. 2022; 72 (721): e581–e591. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 40. Quinn-Scoggins HD, Murray RL, Quaife SL, et al. : Co-development of an evidence-based personalised smoking cessation intervention for use in a lung cancer screening context. BMC Pulm Med. 2022; 22 (1): 478. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 41. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999; 89 (9): 1322–1327. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 42. Browne I, Doherty M: Immunotherapy update in Lung Cancer. Health Professional News, December 10, 2021, 26. Reference Source 43. Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, et al. : A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017; 12 (1): 77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 44. Pratschke J, Quigley M: Pobal HP deprivation index 2022. Reference Source 45. Cushing B, Jacob B, Low X, et al. : Recruitment strategies for lung cancer screening: an umbrella review protocol [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. HRB Open Res. 2025; 8 : 71–1. Publisher Full Text 46. Teljeur C, Darker C, Barry J, et al. : The trinity national deprivation index for health and health services research 2016. 2016. Reference Source 47. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. : Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009; 4 (1): 50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 48. Horton JN: Nominal group technique. A method of decision-making by committee. Anaesthesia. 1980; 35 (8): 811–814. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 49. Rankin NM, McGregor D, Butow PN, et al. : Adapting the nominal group technique for priority setting of evidence-practice gaps in implementation science. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016; 16 (1): 110. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 50. Popova L: The extended parallel process model: illuminating the gaps in research. Health Educ Behav. 2012; 39 (4): 455–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 51. Brown J, Isaacs D: The World Café : shaping our futures through conversations that matter. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA, 2005. Reference Source 52. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J: Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19 (6): 349–357. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 53. Brown LR, Sullivan F, Treweek S, et al. : Increasing uptake to a lung cancer screening programme: building with communities through co-design. BMC Public Health. 2022; 22 (1): 815. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 54. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. : Better reporting of interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014; 348 : g1687. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 55. Key findings Ireland’s UN SDGs - Goal 3 Good Health and Well-Being 2024. Central Statistics Office. CSO, 2024; [cited 2025 Jul 15]. Reference Source 56. Young RP, Scott RJ, Gamble GD: Lung function impairment in lung cancer screening: discordance between risk and screening outcomes when looking through a PRISm. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2022; 11 (10): 1988–1994. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 57. Mulligan B: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study. OSF, July 17, 2025; [cited 2025 Jul 17]. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4KMT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 Nov 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, Dublin, Ireland 2 Department of Health Psychology, School of Population Health, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, Dublin, Ireland 3 Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), Irish Lung Cancer Community, Dublin, Ireland 4 National Screening Service, Health Service Executive (HSE), Dublin, Ireland 5 Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK 6 School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Brona Mulligan Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing Maeve Reilly Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation Ahmeda Ali Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Conor Murphy Roles: Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Sam McGlynn Roles: Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing Mohammed Alam Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Frank Doyle Roles: Writing – Review & Editing Seamus Cotter Roles: Resources Laura Heavey Roles: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Kate Brain Roles: Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Nicole Rankin Roles: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Grace McCutchan Roles: Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Patrick Redmond Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 28 Jul 2025, 6:64 https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13793.2 version 1 Published: 13 Nov 2023, 6:64 https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13793.1 Copyright © 2025 Mulligan B et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics VIEWS $counts.viewCount downloads Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Mulligan B, Reilly M, Ali A et al. Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13793.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 28 Jul 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Arnolda G. Reviewer Report For: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15635.r48594 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v2#referee-response-48594 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 20 Aug 2025 Gaston Arnolda , Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15635.r48594 I have read the authors' response to my comments on the first draft. I can confirm that the clarifications I required were addressed in their responses, with appropriate modification to the manuscript. I particularly appreciated the updated ... Continue reading READ ALL I have read the authors' response to my comments on the first draft. I can confirm that the clarifications I required were addressed in their responses, with appropriate modification to the manuscript. I particularly appreciated the updated logic model. If it is possible, it would be helpful if the pdf can place this logic model on a full landscape-formatted page so that it can be viewed simply when the pdf is printed out. My initial assessment was 'Approved' and I see no reason to downgrade this. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Arnolda G. Reviewer Report For: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15635.r48594 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v2#referee-response-48594 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 13 Nov 2023 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Begnaud A. Reviewer Report For: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15091.r39808 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v1#referee-response-39808 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 20 Jun 2024 Abbie Begnaud , University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15091.r39808 This protocol is an important contribution to the field of advancing lung cancer screening uptake in Ireland. Much of the published work has occurred elsewhere and thus, needs to be adapted to the local context. Community co-design is a valid ... Continue reading READ ALL This protocol is an important contribution to the field of advancing lung cancer screening uptake in Ireland. Much of the published work has occurred elsewhere and thus, needs to be adapted to the local context. Community co-design is a valid and ideal approach, integrating evidence based strategies with behavioral health frameworks and lived experience of the population of interest. Not knowing the specific guidelines or coverage for lung cancer screening in Ireland, I’m not sure if the selected population (persons aged 55 and older who have recently quit smoking or are still smoking cigarettes) is appropriate. Why not include individuals aged 50 and older or those who have quit longer ago? I also did not see mention of incentives for participants (PPI or interview participants) and expect these will be offered? Finally, it’s not clear to me what “Irish Lung Cancer Community (ILCC)” is - is this a general description of people in Ireland personally affected by lung cancer or is this a specific named group or organization? Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Lung cancer screening and implementation research I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Begnaud A. Reviewer Report For: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15091.r39808 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v1#referee-response-39808 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Brona Mulligan , Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland 10 Sep 2025 Author Response Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and kind words about the protocol’s contribution to advancing lung cancer screening uptake in Ireland. Since publishing this protocol in 2023, we have updated ... Continue reading Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and kind words about the protocol’s contribution to advancing lung cancer screening uptake in Ireland. Since publishing this protocol in 2023, we have updated the protocol and have submitted a comprehensive Volume 2. In the updated methods section, we have clarified that the PPI group includes individuals and families affected by lung cancer affiliated with the Irish Lung Cancer Community (ILCC), a dedicated organization supporting those impacted by lung cancer in Ireland. We have also clarified that all participants, including PPI contributors and interviewees, will receive appropriate reimbursement or compensation for their time and expenses in line with NIHR INVOLVE guidelines, ensuring fair recognition of their contributions to the study. We have aligned the inclusion criteria for interview participants with the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Lung Health Check trial guidelines, targeting individuals aged 55–74 years with specific smoking histories and clinical risk thresholds, while focusing recruitment in areas of deprivation. Given that these criteria are evidence-based and currently guide screening eligibility, this will be the target population for the recruitment tool. The opinions of those at high risk of lung cancer, who will ultimately receive the recruitment strategy, are essential to the co-design process to ensure the tool is relevant, acceptable, and effective for its intended users. Thank you again for your valuable insights and for taking the time to review our work. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and kind words about the protocol’s contribution to advancing lung cancer screening uptake in Ireland. Since publishing this protocol in 2023, we have updated the protocol and have submitted a comprehensive Volume 2. In the updated methods section, we have clarified that the PPI group includes individuals and families affected by lung cancer affiliated with the Irish Lung Cancer Community (ILCC), a dedicated organization supporting those impacted by lung cancer in Ireland. We have also clarified that all participants, including PPI contributors and interviewees, will receive appropriate reimbursement or compensation for their time and expenses in line with NIHR INVOLVE guidelines, ensuring fair recognition of their contributions to the study. We have aligned the inclusion criteria for interview participants with the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Lung Health Check trial guidelines, targeting individuals aged 55–74 years with specific smoking histories and clinical risk thresholds, while focusing recruitment in areas of deprivation. Given that these criteria are evidence-based and currently guide screening eligibility, this will be the target population for the recruitment tool. The opinions of those at high risk of lung cancer, who will ultimately receive the recruitment strategy, are essential to the co-design process to ensure the tool is relevant, acceptable, and effective for its intended users. Thank you again for your valuable insights and for taking the time to review our work. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Brona Mulligan , Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland 10 Sep 2025 Author Response Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and kind words about the protocol’s contribution to advancing lung cancer screening uptake in Ireland. Since publishing this protocol in 2023, we have updated ... Continue reading Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and kind words about the protocol’s contribution to advancing lung cancer screening uptake in Ireland. Since publishing this protocol in 2023, we have updated the protocol and have submitted a comprehensive Volume 2. In the updated methods section, we have clarified that the PPI group includes individuals and families affected by lung cancer affiliated with the Irish Lung Cancer Community (ILCC), a dedicated organization supporting those impacted by lung cancer in Ireland. We have also clarified that all participants, including PPI contributors and interviewees, will receive appropriate reimbursement or compensation for their time and expenses in line with NIHR INVOLVE guidelines, ensuring fair recognition of their contributions to the study. We have aligned the inclusion criteria for interview participants with the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Lung Health Check trial guidelines, targeting individuals aged 55–74 years with specific smoking histories and clinical risk thresholds, while focusing recruitment in areas of deprivation. Given that these criteria are evidence-based and currently guide screening eligibility, this will be the target population for the recruitment tool. The opinions of those at high risk of lung cancer, who will ultimately receive the recruitment strategy, are essential to the co-design process to ensure the tool is relevant, acceptable, and effective for its intended users. Thank you again for your valuable insights and for taking the time to review our work. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and kind words about the protocol’s contribution to advancing lung cancer screening uptake in Ireland. Since publishing this protocol in 2023, we have updated the protocol and have submitted a comprehensive Volume 2. In the updated methods section, we have clarified that the PPI group includes individuals and families affected by lung cancer affiliated with the Irish Lung Cancer Community (ILCC), a dedicated organization supporting those impacted by lung cancer in Ireland. We have also clarified that all participants, including PPI contributors and interviewees, will receive appropriate reimbursement or compensation for their time and expenses in line with NIHR INVOLVE guidelines, ensuring fair recognition of their contributions to the study. We have aligned the inclusion criteria for interview participants with the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Lung Health Check trial guidelines, targeting individuals aged 55–74 years with specific smoking histories and clinical risk thresholds, while focusing recruitment in areas of deprivation. Given that these criteria are evidence-based and currently guide screening eligibility, this will be the target population for the recruitment tool. The opinions of those at high risk of lung cancer, who will ultimately receive the recruitment strategy, are essential to the co-design process to ensure the tool is relevant, acceptable, and effective for its intended users. Thank you again for your valuable insights and for taking the time to review our work. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Mascalchi M. Reviewer Report For: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15091.r39809 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v1#referee-response-39809 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 03 Jun 2024 Mario Mascalchi , \"Mario Serio\", University of Florence, Florence, Italy Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15091.r39809 The project is thoroughly and redundantly described. It aims to define a strategy suited to improve participation to Lung Cancer Screening in smokers living in deprived areas of Ireland. Merits The process to define an ... Continue reading READ ALL The project is thoroughly and redundantly described. It aims to define a strategy suited to improve participation to Lung Cancer Screening in smokers living in deprived areas of Ireland. Merits The process to define an optimal recruitment strategy for the target population is well analyzed and subdivided in 4 steps with involvement of different components (clinical scientists, stakeholders etc.) Limitations The assumption that recruiting subjects at higher risk of LC focusing in deprived areas will yield a major benefit in term of LC screening efficacy, is at odds with the observation that, unfortunately, subjects at higher risk based on age and smoking burden are those that more likely develop more aggressive and untreatable LC (Young et al, 2022) [Ref 1] Starting from GP is not the unique approach to identify eligible subjects. In Europe, self-referral through web is feasible and brings to recruitment of subjects with less smoking co-morbidities, primarily cardio-vascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which often vanish the potential benefit of a LC discovery through screening. I understand that subjects in deprived areas of Ireland are not likely to use the web, but a smartphone is probably owned by every 55-70 years old subject living in Ireland. The Authors should provide some clearer hypotheses about which recruitment modality or mix of factors involved in recruitment modality are expected to constitute the outcome of the project. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Partly References 1. Young R, Scott R, Gamble G: Lung function impairment in lung cancer screening: discordance between risk and screening outcomes when looking through a PRISm. Translational Lung Cancer Research . 2022; 11 (10): 1988-1994 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Mascalchi M. Reviewer Report For: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15091.r39809 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v1#referee-response-39809 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 24 Oct 2024 Sam McGlynn , Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland 24 Oct 2024 Author Response Hi Mario, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for the detailed comments provided. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they ... Continue reading Hi Mario, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for the detailed comments provided. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they will ease any reservations you had previously. You raise a valid point regarding the potential benefit of screening in terms of early detection and treatment efficacy being diminished in high-risk populations due to the development of more aggressive forms of lung cancer. We will look at adding a new section to Limitations heading in the protocol to acknowledge this issue and reference Young et al. (2022). However, the rationale for focusing on deprived areas is to increase equity in access to screening and enhance uptake. It therefore aligns with the broader goals of public health, even if the clinical benefits may vary depending on the aggressiveness of the detected cancers. Your second comment relates to adding self-referral through web-based platforms or smartphone apps and this could be a useful addition. We will add an approach in the Methods section that outlines the potential of incorporating digital recruitment methods alongside recruitment through GPs. There are potential barriers to digital access in deprived areas but this could potentially help reach a wider audience and improve participation rates. Finally, we will add specific hypotheses regarding the recruitment modalities and combinations we expect to be most effective, that tie in with the above comment. “We hypothesise that a hybrid recruitment strategy—combining traditional general practice recruitment with digital self-referral methods—will yield higher participation rates compared to a single-modality approach.” In addition to this we could look at adding a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of different recruitment strategies based on metrics such as recruitment rate, participant diversity, and participant engagement. Hi Mario, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for the detailed comments provided. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they will ease any reservations you had previously. You raise a valid point regarding the potential benefit of screening in terms of early detection and treatment efficacy being diminished in high-risk populations due to the development of more aggressive forms of lung cancer. We will look at adding a new section to Limitations heading in the protocol to acknowledge this issue and reference Young et al. (2022). However, the rationale for focusing on deprived areas is to increase equity in access to screening and enhance uptake. It therefore aligns with the broader goals of public health, even if the clinical benefits may vary depending on the aggressiveness of the detected cancers. Your second comment relates to adding self-referral through web-based platforms or smartphone apps and this could be a useful addition. We will add an approach in the Methods section that outlines the potential of incorporating digital recruitment methods alongside recruitment through GPs. There are potential barriers to digital access in deprived areas but this could potentially help reach a wider audience and improve participation rates. Finally, we will add specific hypotheses regarding the recruitment modalities and combinations we expect to be most effective, that tie in with the above comment. “We hypothesise that a hybrid recruitment strategy—combining traditional general practice recruitment with digital self-referral methods—will yield higher participation rates compared to a single-modality approach.” In addition to this we could look at adding a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of different recruitment strategies based on metrics such as recruitment rate, participant diversity, and participant engagement. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Brona Mulligan , Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland 10 Sep 2025 Author Response We thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback on our protocol published in 2023. Since then, we have updated the protocol and will be submitting a comprehensive Volume 2 ... Continue reading We thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback on our protocol published in 2023. Since then, we have updated the protocol and will be submitting a comprehensive Volume 2 outlining these revisions. We have addressed concerns that recruiting high-risk individuals from deprived areas may offer limited clinical benefit due to later-stage lung cancer diagnosis in this population, by adding a discussion of this limitation in the updated protocol. While early detection may be challenging in these cases, focusing recruitment on socioeconomically deprived areas aligns with public health priorities to improve equity in access to screening. We also acknowledge that recruitment via general practice is not the sole method to identify eligible participants. Although the updated protocol does not explicitly incorporate digital recruitment strategies, we are exploring these methods in parallel work. Nevertheless, the recruitment tool developed in this study remains essential for healthcare professionals to effectively engage high-risk individuals in lung cancer screening, especially in Ireland, where most people in deprived areas are registered with a GP and have access to publicly funded healthcare. Finally, in response to the suggestion to clarify recruitment hypotheses, we have included a statement in the Introduction anticipating that combining recruitment modalities may optimize participation and engagement. We appreciate the comments, which have helped refine our study rationale and future directions. The forthcoming Volume 2 will provide further details on these updates. We thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback on our protocol published in 2023. Since then, we have updated the protocol and will be submitting a comprehensive Volume 2 outlining these revisions. We have addressed concerns that recruiting high-risk individuals from deprived areas may offer limited clinical benefit due to later-stage lung cancer diagnosis in this population, by adding a discussion of this limitation in the updated protocol. While early detection may be challenging in these cases, focusing recruitment on socioeconomically deprived areas aligns with public health priorities to improve equity in access to screening. We also acknowledge that recruitment via general practice is not the sole method to identify eligible participants. Although the updated protocol does not explicitly incorporate digital recruitment strategies, we are exploring these methods in parallel work. Nevertheless, the recruitment tool developed in this study remains essential for healthcare professionals to effectively engage high-risk individuals in lung cancer screening, especially in Ireland, where most people in deprived areas are registered with a GP and have access to publicly funded healthcare. Finally, in response to the suggestion to clarify recruitment hypotheses, we have included a statement in the Introduction anticipating that combining recruitment modalities may optimize participation and engagement. We appreciate the comments, which have helped refine our study rationale and future directions. The forthcoming Volume 2 will provide further details on these updates. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 24 Oct 2024 Sam McGlynn , Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland 24 Oct 2024 Author Response Hi Mario, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for the detailed comments provided. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they ... Continue reading Hi Mario, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for the detailed comments provided. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they will ease any reservations you had previously. You raise a valid point regarding the potential benefit of screening in terms of early detection and treatment efficacy being diminished in high-risk populations due to the development of more aggressive forms of lung cancer. We will look at adding a new section to Limitations heading in the protocol to acknowledge this issue and reference Young et al. (2022). However, the rationale for focusing on deprived areas is to increase equity in access to screening and enhance uptake. It therefore aligns with the broader goals of public health, even if the clinical benefits may vary depending on the aggressiveness of the detected cancers. Your second comment relates to adding self-referral through web-based platforms or smartphone apps and this could be a useful addition. We will add an approach in the Methods section that outlines the potential of incorporating digital recruitment methods alongside recruitment through GPs. There are potential barriers to digital access in deprived areas but this could potentially help reach a wider audience and improve participation rates. Finally, we will add specific hypotheses regarding the recruitment modalities and combinations we expect to be most effective, that tie in with the above comment. “We hypothesise that a hybrid recruitment strategy—combining traditional general practice recruitment with digital self-referral methods—will yield higher participation rates compared to a single-modality approach.” In addition to this we could look at adding a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of different recruitment strategies based on metrics such as recruitment rate, participant diversity, and participant engagement. Hi Mario, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for the detailed comments provided. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they will ease any reservations you had previously. You raise a valid point regarding the potential benefit of screening in terms of early detection and treatment efficacy being diminished in high-risk populations due to the development of more aggressive forms of lung cancer. We will look at adding a new section to Limitations heading in the protocol to acknowledge this issue and reference Young et al. (2022). However, the rationale for focusing on deprived areas is to increase equity in access to screening and enhance uptake. It therefore aligns with the broader goals of public health, even if the clinical benefits may vary depending on the aggressiveness of the detected cancers. Your second comment relates to adding self-referral through web-based platforms or smartphone apps and this could be a useful addition. We will add an approach in the Methods section that outlines the potential of incorporating digital recruitment methods alongside recruitment through GPs. There are potential barriers to digital access in deprived areas but this could potentially help reach a wider audience and improve participation rates. Finally, we will add specific hypotheses regarding the recruitment modalities and combinations we expect to be most effective, that tie in with the above comment. “We hypothesise that a hybrid recruitment strategy—combining traditional general practice recruitment with digital self-referral methods—will yield higher participation rates compared to a single-modality approach.” In addition to this we could look at adding a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of different recruitment strategies based on metrics such as recruitment rate, participant diversity, and participant engagement. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Brona Mulligan , Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland 10 Sep 2025 Author Response We thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback on our protocol published in 2023. Since then, we have updated the protocol and will be submitting a comprehensive Volume 2 ... Continue reading We thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback on our protocol published in 2023. Since then, we have updated the protocol and will be submitting a comprehensive Volume 2 outlining these revisions. We have addressed concerns that recruiting high-risk individuals from deprived areas may offer limited clinical benefit due to later-stage lung cancer diagnosis in this population, by adding a discussion of this limitation in the updated protocol. While early detection may be challenging in these cases, focusing recruitment on socioeconomically deprived areas aligns with public health priorities to improve equity in access to screening. We also acknowledge that recruitment via general practice is not the sole method to identify eligible participants. Although the updated protocol does not explicitly incorporate digital recruitment strategies, we are exploring these methods in parallel work. Nevertheless, the recruitment tool developed in this study remains essential for healthcare professionals to effectively engage high-risk individuals in lung cancer screening, especially in Ireland, where most people in deprived areas are registered with a GP and have access to publicly funded healthcare. Finally, in response to the suggestion to clarify recruitment hypotheses, we have included a statement in the Introduction anticipating that combining recruitment modalities may optimize participation and engagement. We appreciate the comments, which have helped refine our study rationale and future directions. The forthcoming Volume 2 will provide further details on these updates. We thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback on our protocol published in 2023. Since then, we have updated the protocol and will be submitting a comprehensive Volume 2 outlining these revisions. We have addressed concerns that recruiting high-risk individuals from deprived areas may offer limited clinical benefit due to later-stage lung cancer diagnosis in this population, by adding a discussion of this limitation in the updated protocol. While early detection may be challenging in these cases, focusing recruitment on socioeconomically deprived areas aligns with public health priorities to improve equity in access to screening. We also acknowledge that recruitment via general practice is not the sole method to identify eligible participants. Although the updated protocol does not explicitly incorporate digital recruitment strategies, we are exploring these methods in parallel work. Nevertheless, the recruitment tool developed in this study remains essential for healthcare professionals to effectively engage high-risk individuals in lung cancer screening, especially in Ireland, where most people in deprived areas are registered with a GP and have access to publicly funded healthcare. Finally, in response to the suggestion to clarify recruitment hypotheses, we have included a statement in the Introduction anticipating that combining recruitment modalities may optimize participation and engagement. We appreciate the comments, which have helped refine our study rationale and future directions. The forthcoming Volume 2 will provide further details on these updates. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Arnolda G. Reviewer Report For: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15091.r37037 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v1#referee-response-37037 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Nov 2023 Gaston Arnolda , Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15091.r37037 Thank you for this protocol outlining a process of co-designing a recruitment strategy for people at higher-risk of lung cancer. Multiple methods are proposed to devise the strategy in four steps: 1) systematic review of interventions; 2) interviews with the ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for this protocol outlining a process of co-designing a recruitment strategy for people at higher-risk of lung cancer. Multiple methods are proposed to devise the strategy in four steps: 1) systematic review of interventions; 2) interviews with the population targeted for screening; 3) development of a strategy; and 4) assessment of feasibility and acceptability. People at higher risk are the targets in step 2, while consumer representatives with a focus on lung cancer will play a role in step 4 (and perhaps step 1 - not entirely clear). A separate expert group comprising primary care clinicians, psychologists and policy makers will be involved in steps 1-4, in various ways. The purpose of co-developing a recruitment strategy is generally recognised as best practice and all of the proposed processes are in themselves not particularly controversial. I am unclear about many details, however, and thus unable to seek specific clarification at this point in the review process as the aim and initial logic model is not entirely clear to me (please accept my apologies for any misunderstandings on my part), and I am also unclear on what is planned in some of the steps. I will do my best to outline the main issues that I believe would be helpful to clarify in a revision. Aim : The aim as specified in the abstract and the end of the introduction is stated as developing a strategy for recruiting older people at higher-risk of lung cancer (particularly in deprived populations). In the methods, however, the sampling for the target group is restricted to eligible low SES individuals attending (an unspecified number of) general practices. This creates crucial questions for me. If the aim is to target eligible low SES people in general, it is not clear to me that this is an appropriate sampling strategy for step 2; this would need to be justified (i.e., evidence that they all regularly attend GPs). If on the other hand the strategy is explicitly to intervene in relation to recruitment through general practices this should be stated in both the aims and and at the end of the introduction and, while the sampling of GP patients would be appropriate, the question arises as to why general practice staff are not a separate group for interview and participants in co-development of strategies (outside of the 'expert group'). Logic model : While I appreciate that the logic model is rudimentary at this stage, it would help the reader if it was re-framed to show how inputs and activities contribute to outputs and short- and longer-term outcomes; the current graphic does not make this clear. A recent paper on the subject may be helpful (Mills, T., Lawton, R. and Sheard, L., 2019. Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models. BMC medical research methodology, 19(1), pp.1-11). As a trivial aside, the finalised logic model needs to have a higher optical resolution. 'High-risk' target group : I found the term high-risk distracting, as it suggests a risk threshold above which someone will be a target. My reading of your protocol, however, is that you are targeting eligible lower SES individuals in lower SES settings, regardless of their individual risk. If this is correct, I suggest reframing the terminology to refer to recruiting eligible low SES individuals in low SES communities (who are higher risk of lung cancer by virtue of this SES). Step 1 sytematic review(?s) : It is not clear to me whether the study is proposing one or more systematic reviews. If one review only, the protocol needs to justify why the already published review of interventions to promote participation in screening programs (Ref #19) was the only information required (e.g., no other information is required vs other information is required, but is adequately provided by other up to date reviews). The information needs should be depicted in the logic model. Step 2 interviews : I may be misunderstanding this, but it seems to me inappropriately labelled 'theory formulation', which I find confusing. Rather, it seems to me that the purpose is to interview the target population to identify potential barriers and facilitators to participating in screening. Having identified these barriers and facilitators, there may then be a process, drawing on theory, to identify a subset of candidate interventions (which seems to me to be Step 3). If you agree, the title 'Identification of barriers and facilitators' seems ore appropriate. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on what I trust will be an important piece of research. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? No Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? No Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Health Services Research I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Arnolda G. Reviewer Report For: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15091.r37037 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v1#referee-response-37037 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 25 Oct 2024 Sam McGlynn , Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland 25 Oct 2024 Author Response Hi Gaston, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for your detailed comments. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they will ... Continue reading Hi Gaston, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for your detailed comments. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they will ease any reservations you may have had previously. We will be revising the aims of the study to clearly indicate that the recruitment strategy is specifically focused on low SES individuals attending general practices in deprived areas. We will also be updating the methods section to include a plan for conducting separate focus groups with general practice staff to gather their perspectives on the recruitment strategy. We will aim to more clearly depict the relationship between inputs, activities, and outputs, as well as short- and long-term outcomes in the logic model. The finalised graphic will demonstrate that the logic model reflects the complexity of the intervention and provides a transparent overview of the research process as in Mills et al. (2019). As suggested, we shall change terminology throughout from “high risk” to “eligible low SES individuals in low SES communities” to better reflect the study’s aims. To clarify, only one systematic review will be conducted to gather evidence from existing interventions to promote participation in screening programs, supplemented by additional observational studies if necessary. This should provide comprehensive coverage of relevant literature and is in alignment with our research objectives. Finally, we will revise the title of Step 2 to ‘Identification of Barriers and Facilitators’ to better capture its intent, which involves conducting interviews to understand the target population’s perspectives on screening participation. Hi Gaston, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for your detailed comments. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they will ease any reservations you may have had previously. We will be revising the aims of the study to clearly indicate that the recruitment strategy is specifically focused on low SES individuals attending general practices in deprived areas. We will also be updating the methods section to include a plan for conducting separate focus groups with general practice staff to gather their perspectives on the recruitment strategy. We will aim to more clearly depict the relationship between inputs, activities, and outputs, as well as short- and long-term outcomes in the logic model. The finalised graphic will demonstrate that the logic model reflects the complexity of the intervention and provides a transparent overview of the research process as in Mills et al. (2019). As suggested, we shall change terminology throughout from “high risk” to “eligible low SES individuals in low SES communities” to better reflect the study’s aims. To clarify, only one systematic review will be conducted to gather evidence from existing interventions to promote participation in screening programs, supplemented by additional observational studies if necessary. This should provide comprehensive coverage of relevant literature and is in alignment with our research objectives. Finally, we will revise the title of Step 2 to ‘Identification of Barriers and Facilitators’ to better capture its intent, which involves conducting interviews to understand the target population’s perspectives on screening participation. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Brona Mulligan , Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland 10 Sep 2025 Author Response We thank you for the thorough and constructive feedback provided on our protocol. Since the initial publication in 2023, we have updated the protocol and have submitted Volume 2 of this ... Continue reading We thank you for the thorough and constructive feedback provided on our protocol. Since the initial publication in 2023, we have updated the protocol and have submitted Volume 2 of this protocol outlining these revisions. This response aims to clarify the points raised and highlight the changes made. Aim and Target Population We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the sampling strategy in Step 2 and the need for clearer articulation of the study’s aims. To address this, we have clarified that the term “high-risk” now reflects individual-level clinical risk of lung cancer, aligned with established criteria from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Lung Health Check (LHC) guidelines, including age, smoking history, and risk thresholds. Recruitment efforts primarily target socioeconomically deprived areas to enhance equity; however, eligible individuals outside these areas will not be excluded. We will collect geographical data (e.g., postcode) to characterize participant distribution. Regarding recruitment settings, the updated protocol broadens strategies beyond general practice. Purposive sampling will include individuals attending the LHC mobile clinic in deprived areas, participants at LHC community engagement events, eligible patients from participating GP practices, and snowball sampling. The recruitment tool is intended for use by healthcare staff, who are actively engaged in co-development through the workshops, providing feedback to refine the tool to better suit clinical workflows and patient needs. Importantly, most individuals in deprived areas are registered with GPs and are eligible for publicly funded healthcare in Ireland, making primary care a key setting for recruitment. Logic Model We agree that the original logic model required greater clarity. The updated version now more clearly illustrates the relationships between inputs, activities, outputs, and short- and long-term outcomes, following recommended frameworks. The graphic has been enhanced for clarity and resolution to better convey the complexity and transparency of the intervention process. Terminology and Step 2 Labeling We concur with the reviewer that “theory formulation” was not the most appropriate label for Step 2. This step has been retitled ‘Identification of Barriers and Facilitators’ to more accurately reflect its purpose, conducting interviews to explore target population perspectives on screening participation. Systematic Review Only one umbrella systematic review will be conducted to synthesize existing interventions aimed at increasing screening participation, supplemented by relevant observational studies where necessary. This approach ensures comprehensive coverage aligned with the study objectives and is clearly articulated in the updated protocol and logic model. We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have helped us refine the protocol and clarify key elements. The forthcoming Volume 2 will provide further details on these updates. We thank you for the thorough and constructive feedback provided on our protocol. Since the initial publication in 2023, we have updated the protocol and have submitted Volume 2 of this protocol outlining these revisions. This response aims to clarify the points raised and highlight the changes made. Aim and Target Population We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the sampling strategy in Step 2 and the need for clearer articulation of the study’s aims. To address this, we have clarified that the term “high-risk” now reflects individual-level clinical risk of lung cancer, aligned with established criteria from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Lung Health Check (LHC) guidelines, including age, smoking history, and risk thresholds. Recruitment efforts primarily target socioeconomically deprived areas to enhance equity; however, eligible individuals outside these areas will not be excluded. We will collect geographical data (e.g., postcode) to characterize participant distribution. Regarding recruitment settings, the updated protocol broadens strategies beyond general practice. Purposive sampling will include individuals attending the LHC mobile clinic in deprived areas, participants at LHC community engagement events, eligible patients from participating GP practices, and snowball sampling. The recruitment tool is intended for use by healthcare staff, who are actively engaged in co-development through the workshops, providing feedback to refine the tool to better suit clinical workflows and patient needs. Importantly, most individuals in deprived areas are registered with GPs and are eligible for publicly funded healthcare in Ireland, making primary care a key setting for recruitment. Logic Model We agree that the original logic model required greater clarity. The updated version now more clearly illustrates the relationships between inputs, activities, outputs, and short- and long-term outcomes, following recommended frameworks. The graphic has been enhanced for clarity and resolution to better convey the complexity and transparency of the intervention process. Terminology and Step 2 Labeling We concur with the reviewer that “theory formulation” was not the most appropriate label for Step 2. This step has been retitled ‘Identification of Barriers and Facilitators’ to more accurately reflect its purpose, conducting interviews to explore target population perspectives on screening participation. Systematic Review Only one umbrella systematic review will be conducted to synthesize existing interventions aimed at increasing screening participation, supplemented by relevant observational studies where necessary. This approach ensures comprehensive coverage aligned with the study objectives and is clearly articulated in the updated protocol and logic model. We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have helped us refine the protocol and clarify key elements. The forthcoming Volume 2 will provide further details on these updates. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 25 Oct 2024 Sam McGlynn , Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland 25 Oct 2024 Author Response Hi Gaston, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for your detailed comments. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they will ... Continue reading Hi Gaston, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for your detailed comments. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they will ease any reservations you may have had previously. We will be revising the aims of the study to clearly indicate that the recruitment strategy is specifically focused on low SES individuals attending general practices in deprived areas. We will also be updating the methods section to include a plan for conducting separate focus groups with general practice staff to gather their perspectives on the recruitment strategy. We will aim to more clearly depict the relationship between inputs, activities, and outputs, as well as short- and long-term outcomes in the logic model. The finalised graphic will demonstrate that the logic model reflects the complexity of the intervention and provides a transparent overview of the research process as in Mills et al. (2019). As suggested, we shall change terminology throughout from “high risk” to “eligible low SES individuals in low SES communities” to better reflect the study’s aims. To clarify, only one systematic review will be conducted to gather evidence from existing interventions to promote participation in screening programs, supplemented by additional observational studies if necessary. This should provide comprehensive coverage of relevant literature and is in alignment with our research objectives. Finally, we will revise the title of Step 2 to ‘Identification of Barriers and Facilitators’ to better capture its intent, which involves conducting interviews to understand the target population’s perspectives on screening participation. Hi Gaston, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for your detailed comments. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they will ease any reservations you may have had previously. We will be revising the aims of the study to clearly indicate that the recruitment strategy is specifically focused on low SES individuals attending general practices in deprived areas. We will also be updating the methods section to include a plan for conducting separate focus groups with general practice staff to gather their perspectives on the recruitment strategy. We will aim to more clearly depict the relationship between inputs, activities, and outputs, as well as short- and long-term outcomes in the logic model. The finalised graphic will demonstrate that the logic model reflects the complexity of the intervention and provides a transparent overview of the research process as in Mills et al. (2019). As suggested, we shall change terminology throughout from “high risk” to “eligible low SES individuals in low SES communities” to better reflect the study’s aims. To clarify, only one systematic review will be conducted to gather evidence from existing interventions to promote participation in screening programs, supplemented by additional observational studies if necessary. This should provide comprehensive coverage of relevant literature and is in alignment with our research objectives. Finally, we will revise the title of Step 2 to ‘Identification of Barriers and Facilitators’ to better capture its intent, which involves conducting interviews to understand the target population’s perspectives on screening participation. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Brona Mulligan , Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland 10 Sep 2025 Author Response We thank you for the thorough and constructive feedback provided on our protocol. Since the initial publication in 2023, we have updated the protocol and have submitted Volume 2 of this ... Continue reading We thank you for the thorough and constructive feedback provided on our protocol. Since the initial publication in 2023, we have updated the protocol and have submitted Volume 2 of this protocol outlining these revisions. This response aims to clarify the points raised and highlight the changes made. Aim and Target Population We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the sampling strategy in Step 2 and the need for clearer articulation of the study’s aims. To address this, we have clarified that the term “high-risk” now reflects individual-level clinical risk of lung cancer, aligned with established criteria from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Lung Health Check (LHC) guidelines, including age, smoking history, and risk thresholds. Recruitment efforts primarily target socioeconomically deprived areas to enhance equity; however, eligible individuals outside these areas will not be excluded. We will collect geographical data (e.g., postcode) to characterize participant distribution. Regarding recruitment settings, the updated protocol broadens strategies beyond general practice. Purposive sampling will include individuals attending the LHC mobile clinic in deprived areas, participants at LHC community engagement events, eligible patients from participating GP practices, and snowball sampling. The recruitment tool is intended for use by healthcare staff, who are actively engaged in co-development through the workshops, providing feedback to refine the tool to better suit clinical workflows and patient needs. Importantly, most individuals in deprived areas are registered with GPs and are eligible for publicly funded healthcare in Ireland, making primary care a key setting for recruitment. Logic Model We agree that the original logic model required greater clarity. The updated version now more clearly illustrates the relationships between inputs, activities, outputs, and short- and long-term outcomes, following recommended frameworks. The graphic has been enhanced for clarity and resolution to better convey the complexity and transparency of the intervention process. Terminology and Step 2 Labeling We concur with the reviewer that “theory formulation” was not the most appropriate label for Step 2. This step has been retitled ‘Identification of Barriers and Facilitators’ to more accurately reflect its purpose, conducting interviews to explore target population perspectives on screening participation. Systematic Review Only one umbrella systematic review will be conducted to synthesize existing interventions aimed at increasing screening participation, supplemented by relevant observational studies where necessary. This approach ensures comprehensive coverage aligned with the study objectives and is clearly articulated in the updated protocol and logic model. We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have helped us refine the protocol and clarify key elements. The forthcoming Volume 2 will provide further details on these updates. We thank you for the thorough and constructive feedback provided on our protocol. Since the initial publication in 2023, we have updated the protocol and have submitted Volume 2 of this protocol outlining these revisions. This response aims to clarify the points raised and highlight the changes made. Aim and Target Population We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the sampling strategy in Step 2 and the need for clearer articulation of the study’s aims. To address this, we have clarified that the term “high-risk” now reflects individual-level clinical risk of lung cancer, aligned with established criteria from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Lung Health Check (LHC) guidelines, including age, smoking history, and risk thresholds. Recruitment efforts primarily target socioeconomically deprived areas to enhance equity; however, eligible individuals outside these areas will not be excluded. We will collect geographical data (e.g., postcode) to characterize participant distribution. Regarding recruitment settings, the updated protocol broadens strategies beyond general practice. Purposive sampling will include individuals attending the LHC mobile clinic in deprived areas, participants at LHC community engagement events, eligible patients from participating GP practices, and snowball sampling. The recruitment tool is intended for use by healthcare staff, who are actively engaged in co-development through the workshops, providing feedback to refine the tool to better suit clinical workflows and patient needs. Importantly, most individuals in deprived areas are registered with GPs and are eligible for publicly funded healthcare in Ireland, making primary care a key setting for recruitment. Logic Model We agree that the original logic model required greater clarity. The updated version now more clearly illustrates the relationships between inputs, activities, outputs, and short- and long-term outcomes, following recommended frameworks. The graphic has been enhanced for clarity and resolution to better convey the complexity and transparency of the intervention process. Terminology and Step 2 Labeling We concur with the reviewer that “theory formulation” was not the most appropriate label for Step 2. This step has been retitled ‘Identification of Barriers and Facilitators’ to more accurately reflect its purpose, conducting interviews to explore target population perspectives on screening participation. Systematic Review Only one umbrella systematic review will be conducted to synthesize existing interventions aimed at increasing screening participation, supplemented by relevant observational studies where necessary. This approach ensures comprehensive coverage aligned with the study objectives and is clearly articulated in the updated protocol and logic model. We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have helped us refine the protocol and clarify key elements. The forthcoming Volume 2 will provide further details on these updates. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 Nov 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 2 (revision) 28 Jul 25 read Version 1 13 Nov 23 read read read Gaston Arnolda , Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Mario Mascalchi , \"Mario Serio\", University of Florence, Florence, Italy Abbie Begnaud , University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Arnolda G. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 20 Aug 2025 | for Version 2 Gaston Arnolda , Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Arnolda G. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have read the authors' response to my comments on the first draft. I can confirm that the clarifications I required were addressed in their responses, with appropriate modification to the manuscript. I particularly appreciated the updated logic model. If it is possible, it would be helpful if the pdf can place this logic model on a full landscape-formatted page so that it can be viewed simply when the pdf is printed out. My initial assessment was 'Approved' and I see no reason to downgrade this. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Arnolda G. Peer Review Report For: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15635.r48594) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v2#referee-response-48594 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Begnaud A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 20 Jun 2024 | for Version 1 Abbie Begnaud , University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, USA 0 Views copyright © 2024 Begnaud A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This protocol is an important contribution to the field of advancing lung cancer screening uptake in Ireland. Much of the published work has occurred elsewhere and thus, needs to be adapted to the local context. Community co-design is a valid and ideal approach, integrating evidence based strategies with behavioral health frameworks and lived experience of the population of interest. Not knowing the specific guidelines or coverage for lung cancer screening in Ireland, I’m not sure if the selected population (persons aged 55 and older who have recently quit smoking or are still smoking cigarettes) is appropriate. Why not include individuals aged 50 and older or those who have quit longer ago? I also did not see mention of incentives for participants (PPI or interview participants) and expect these will be offered? Finally, it’s not clear to me what “Irish Lung Cancer Community (ILCC)” is - is this a general description of people in Ireland personally affected by lung cancer or is this a specific named group or organization? Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Lung cancer screening and implementation research I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Brona Mulligan, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and kind words about the protocol’s contribution to advancing lung cancer screening uptake in Ireland. Since publishing this protocol in 2023, we have updated the protocol and have submitted a comprehensive Volume 2. In the updated methods section, we have clarified that the PPI group includes individuals and families affected by lung cancer affiliated with the Irish Lung Cancer Community (ILCC), a dedicated organization supporting those impacted by lung cancer in Ireland. We have also clarified that all participants, including PPI contributors and interviewees, will receive appropriate reimbursement or compensation for their time and expenses in line with NIHR INVOLVE guidelines, ensuring fair recognition of their contributions to the study. We have aligned the inclusion criteria for interview participants with the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Lung Health Check trial guidelines, targeting individuals aged 55–74 years with specific smoking histories and clinical risk thresholds, while focusing recruitment in areas of deprivation. Given that these criteria are evidence-based and currently guide screening eligibility, this will be the target population for the recruitment tool. The opinions of those at high risk of lung cancer, who will ultimately receive the recruitment strategy, are essential to the co-design process to ensure the tool is relevant, acceptable, and effective for its intended users. Thank you again for your valuable insights and for taking the time to review our work. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Begnaud A. Peer Review Report For: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15091.r39808) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v1#referee-response-39808 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Mascalchi M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 03 Jun 2024 | for Version 1 Mario Mascalchi , \"Mario Serio\", University of Florence, Florence, Italy 0 Views copyright © 2024 Mascalchi M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The project is thoroughly and redundantly described. It aims to define a strategy suited to improve participation to Lung Cancer Screening in smokers living in deprived areas of Ireland. Merits The process to define an optimal recruitment strategy for the target population is well analyzed and subdivided in 4 steps with involvement of different components (clinical scientists, stakeholders etc.) Limitations The assumption that recruiting subjects at higher risk of LC focusing in deprived areas will yield a major benefit in term of LC screening efficacy, is at odds with the observation that, unfortunately, subjects at higher risk based on age and smoking burden are those that more likely develop more aggressive and untreatable LC (Young et al, 2022) [Ref 1] Starting from GP is not the unique approach to identify eligible subjects. In Europe, self-referral through web is feasible and brings to recruitment of subjects with less smoking co-morbidities, primarily cardio-vascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which often vanish the potential benefit of a LC discovery through screening. I understand that subjects in deprived areas of Ireland are not likely to use the web, but a smartphone is probably owned by every 55-70 years old subject living in Ireland. The Authors should provide some clearer hypotheses about which recruitment modality or mix of factors involved in recruitment modality are expected to constitute the outcome of the project. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Partly References 1. Young R, Scott R, Gamble G: Lung function impairment in lung cancer screening: discordance between risk and screening outcomes when looking through a PRISm. Translational Lung Cancer Research . 2022; 11 (10): 1988-1994 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (2) Author Response 24 Oct 2024 Sam McGlynn, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland Hi Mario, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for the detailed comments provided. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they will ease any reservations you had previously. You raise a valid point regarding the potential benefit of screening in terms of early detection and treatment efficacy being diminished in high-risk populations due to the development of more aggressive forms of lung cancer. We will look at adding a new section to Limitations heading in the protocol to acknowledge this issue and reference Young et al. (2022). However, the rationale for focusing on deprived areas is to increase equity in access to screening and enhance uptake. It therefore aligns with the broader goals of public health, even if the clinical benefits may vary depending on the aggressiveness of the detected cancers. Your second comment relates to adding self-referral through web-based platforms or smartphone apps and this could be a useful addition. We will add an approach in the Methods section that outlines the potential of incorporating digital recruitment methods alongside recruitment through GPs. There are potential barriers to digital access in deprived areas but this could potentially help reach a wider audience and improve participation rates. Finally, we will add specific hypotheses regarding the recruitment modalities and combinations we expect to be most effective, that tie in with the above comment. “We hypothesise that a hybrid recruitment strategy—combining traditional general practice recruitment with digital self-referral methods—will yield higher participation rates compared to a single-modality approach.” In addition to this we could look at adding a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of different recruitment strategies based on metrics such as recruitment rate, participant diversity, and participant engagement. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Brona Mulligan, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland We thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback on our protocol published in 2023. Since then, we have updated the protocol and will be submitting a comprehensive Volume 2 outlining these revisions. We have addressed concerns that recruiting high-risk individuals from deprived areas may offer limited clinical benefit due to later-stage lung cancer diagnosis in this population, by adding a discussion of this limitation in the updated protocol. While early detection may be challenging in these cases, focusing recruitment on socioeconomically deprived areas aligns with public health priorities to improve equity in access to screening. We also acknowledge that recruitment via general practice is not the sole method to identify eligible participants. Although the updated protocol does not explicitly incorporate digital recruitment strategies, we are exploring these methods in parallel work. Nevertheless, the recruitment tool developed in this study remains essential for healthcare professionals to effectively engage high-risk individuals in lung cancer screening, especially in Ireland, where most people in deprived areas are registered with a GP and have access to publicly funded healthcare. Finally, in response to the suggestion to clarify recruitment hypotheses, we have included a statement in the Introduction anticipating that combining recruitment modalities may optimize participation and engagement. We appreciate the comments, which have helped refine our study rationale and future directions. The forthcoming Volume 2 will provide further details on these updates. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Mascalchi M. Peer Review Report For: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15091.r39809) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v1#referee-response-39809 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Arnolda G. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Nov 2023 | for Version 1 Gaston Arnolda , Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 0 Views copyright © 2023 Arnolda G. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for this protocol outlining a process of co-designing a recruitment strategy for people at higher-risk of lung cancer. Multiple methods are proposed to devise the strategy in four steps: 1) systematic review of interventions; 2) interviews with the population targeted for screening; 3) development of a strategy; and 4) assessment of feasibility and acceptability. People at higher risk are the targets in step 2, while consumer representatives with a focus on lung cancer will play a role in step 4 (and perhaps step 1 - not entirely clear). A separate expert group comprising primary care clinicians, psychologists and policy makers will be involved in steps 1-4, in various ways. The purpose of co-developing a recruitment strategy is generally recognised as best practice and all of the proposed processes are in themselves not particularly controversial. I am unclear about many details, however, and thus unable to seek specific clarification at this point in the review process as the aim and initial logic model is not entirely clear to me (please accept my apologies for any misunderstandings on my part), and I am also unclear on what is planned in some of the steps. I will do my best to outline the main issues that I believe would be helpful to clarify in a revision. Aim : The aim as specified in the abstract and the end of the introduction is stated as developing a strategy for recruiting older people at higher-risk of lung cancer (particularly in deprived populations). In the methods, however, the sampling for the target group is restricted to eligible low SES individuals attending (an unspecified number of) general practices. This creates crucial questions for me. If the aim is to target eligible low SES people in general, it is not clear to me that this is an appropriate sampling strategy for step 2; this would need to be justified (i.e., evidence that they all regularly attend GPs). If on the other hand the strategy is explicitly to intervene in relation to recruitment through general practices this should be stated in both the aims and and at the end of the introduction and, while the sampling of GP patients would be appropriate, the question arises as to why general practice staff are not a separate group for interview and participants in co-development of strategies (outside of the 'expert group'). Logic model : While I appreciate that the logic model is rudimentary at this stage, it would help the reader if it was re-framed to show how inputs and activities contribute to outputs and short- and longer-term outcomes; the current graphic does not make this clear. A recent paper on the subject may be helpful (Mills, T., Lawton, R. and Sheard, L., 2019. Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models. BMC medical research methodology, 19(1), pp.1-11). As a trivial aside, the finalised logic model needs to have a higher optical resolution. 'High-risk' target group : I found the term high-risk distracting, as it suggests a risk threshold above which someone will be a target. My reading of your protocol, however, is that you are targeting eligible lower SES individuals in lower SES settings, regardless of their individual risk. If this is correct, I suggest reframing the terminology to refer to recruiting eligible low SES individuals in low SES communities (who are higher risk of lung cancer by virtue of this SES). Step 1 sytematic review(?s) : It is not clear to me whether the study is proposing one or more systematic reviews. If one review only, the protocol needs to justify why the already published review of interventions to promote participation in screening programs (Ref #19) was the only information required (e.g., no other information is required vs other information is required, but is adequately provided by other up to date reviews). The information needs should be depicted in the logic model. Step 2 interviews : I may be misunderstanding this, but it seems to me inappropriately labelled 'theory formulation', which I find confusing. Rather, it seems to me that the purpose is to interview the target population to identify potential barriers and facilitators to participating in screening. Having identified these barriers and facilitators, there may then be a process, drawing on theory, to identify a subset of candidate interventions (which seems to me to be Step 3). If you agree, the title 'Identification of barriers and facilitators' seems ore appropriate. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on what I trust will be an important piece of research. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? No Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? No Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Health Services Research I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (2) Author Response 25 Oct 2024 Sam McGlynn, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland Hi Gaston, Thank you for taking the time to read our article and for your detailed comments. We have attempted to address these below and hope that they will ease any reservations you may have had previously. We will be revising the aims of the study to clearly indicate that the recruitment strategy is specifically focused on low SES individuals attending general practices in deprived areas. We will also be updating the methods section to include a plan for conducting separate focus groups with general practice staff to gather their perspectives on the recruitment strategy. We will aim to more clearly depict the relationship between inputs, activities, and outputs, as well as short- and long-term outcomes in the logic model. The finalised graphic will demonstrate that the logic model reflects the complexity of the intervention and provides a transparent overview of the research process as in Mills et al. (2019). As suggested, we shall change terminology throughout from “high risk” to “eligible low SES individuals in low SES communities” to better reflect the study’s aims. To clarify, only one systematic review will be conducted to gather evidence from existing interventions to promote participation in screening programs, supplemented by additional observational studies if necessary. This should provide comprehensive coverage of relevant literature and is in alignment with our research objectives. Finally, we will revise the title of Step 2 to ‘Identification of Barriers and Facilitators’ to better capture its intent, which involves conducting interviews to understand the target population’s perspectives on screening participation. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Brona Mulligan, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Department of General Practice, Dublin, Ireland We thank you for the thorough and constructive feedback provided on our protocol. Since the initial publication in 2023, we have updated the protocol and have submitted Volume 2 of this protocol outlining these revisions. This response aims to clarify the points raised and highlight the changes made. Aim and Target Population We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the sampling strategy in Step 2 and the need for clearer articulation of the study’s aims. To address this, we have clarified that the term “high-risk” now reflects individual-level clinical risk of lung cancer, aligned with established criteria from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and Lung Health Check (LHC) guidelines, including age, smoking history, and risk thresholds. Recruitment efforts primarily target socioeconomically deprived areas to enhance equity; however, eligible individuals outside these areas will not be excluded. We will collect geographical data (e.g., postcode) to characterize participant distribution. Regarding recruitment settings, the updated protocol broadens strategies beyond general practice. Purposive sampling will include individuals attending the LHC mobile clinic in deprived areas, participants at LHC community engagement events, eligible patients from participating GP practices, and snowball sampling. The recruitment tool is intended for use by healthcare staff, who are actively engaged in co-development through the workshops, providing feedback to refine the tool to better suit clinical workflows and patient needs. Importantly, most individuals in deprived areas are registered with GPs and are eligible for publicly funded healthcare in Ireland, making primary care a key setting for recruitment. Logic Model We agree that the original logic model required greater clarity. The updated version now more clearly illustrates the relationships between inputs, activities, outputs, and short- and long-term outcomes, following recommended frameworks. The graphic has been enhanced for clarity and resolution to better convey the complexity and transparency of the intervention process. Terminology and Step 2 Labeling We concur with the reviewer that “theory formulation” was not the most appropriate label for Step 2. This step has been retitled ‘Identification of Barriers and Facilitators’ to more accurately reflect its purpose, conducting interviews to explore target population perspectives on screening participation. Systematic Review Only one umbrella systematic review will be conducted to synthesize existing interventions aimed at increasing screening participation, supplemented by relevant observational studies where necessary. This approach ensures comprehensive coverage aligned with the study objectives and is clearly articulated in the updated protocol and logic model. We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have helped us refine the protocol and clarify key elements. The forthcoming Volume 2 will provide further details on these updates. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Arnolda G. Peer Review Report For: Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :64 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15091.r37037) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v1#referee-response-37037 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with HRB Open Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = \"Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung...\".replace(\"'\", ''); var linkedInUrl = \"http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v2\" + \"&title=\" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + \"&summary=\" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = \"https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v2&title=\" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = \"http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v2\" + \"&title=\" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Mulligan B et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : \"facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com\", services_expanded : \"facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com\", services_custom : [ { name: \"LinkedIn\", url: linkedInUrl, icon:\"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg\" }, { name: \"Mendeley\", url: \"http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v2/mendeley\", icon:\"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg\" }, { name: \"Reddit\", url: redditUrl, icon:\"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg\" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: \"https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64\", templates : { twitter : \"Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening.... Mulligan B et al., published by \" + \"@HRBOpenRes\" + \", https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-64/v2\" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != \"undefined\"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(\".f1r-shares-twitter\").attr(\"href\", \"https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=\" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(\".f1r-shares-facebook\").attr(\"href\", \"https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=\" + addthis_share.url); $(\".f1r-shares-linkedin\").attr(\"href\", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(\".f1r-shares-reddit\").attr(\"href\", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(\".f1r-shares-mendelay\").attr(\"href\", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(\".addthis_button_expanded\").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== \"\" && count != \"0\") $(this).removeClass(\"is-hidden\"); else $(this).addClass(\"is-hidden\"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get(\"/articles/acj/13793/15635\") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay(\"articles\", \"article\", \"15635\"); $(document).ready(function() { $( \"#frame1\" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find(\"div\"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(\".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info\"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr(\"title\"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: [\"-115\", \"30\"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + \" \" }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr(\"title\"); $(\"body\").on(\"click\", \".cite-living-figure\", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr(\"data-ref\"); $(this).closest(\".living-figure-list-container\").find(\"#\" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $(\"body\").on(\"click\", \".close-cite-living-figure\", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(\".popup-window-wrapper\").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on(\"mouseup\", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(\".article-metrics-popover-wrapper\"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(\".article-metrics-close-button\").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($(\"#main-article-count-box\").attachArticleMetrics) { $(\"#main-article-count-box\").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(\".new_figshare_widget\"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load(\"f1000\", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr(\"figshare_articleId\") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { \"39808\": 25, \"39809\": 26, \"39810\": 0, \"39170\": 0, \"39177\": 0, \"37132\": 0, \"37133\": 0, \"39182\": 0, \"37134\": 0, \"39183\": 0, \"37135\": 0, \"39184\": 0, \"37136\": 0, \"37137\": 0, \"39185\": 0, \"39186\": 0, \"37138\": 0, \"39187\": 0, \"37139\": 0, \"39188\": 0, \"37140\": 0, \"37141\": 0, \"39189\": 0, \"39190\": 0, \"37032\": 0, \"37033\": 0, \"37034\": 0, \"37035\": 0, \"37036\": 0, \"37037\": 49, \"37709\": 0, \"37710\": 0, \"48594\": 10, \"38354\": 0, \"48595\": 0, \"38355\": 0, \"48596\": 0, \"38356\": 0, \"38357\": 0, \"38358\": 0, \"38359\": 0, \"38360\": 0, \"38361\": 0, \"38362\": 0, \"38363\": 0, \"39801\": 0, \"39802\": 0, \"39803\": 0, \"39804\": 0, \"39805\": 0, \"39806\": 0, \"39807\": 0, }; $(\".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report\").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr(\"data-reportid\"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(\".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views\").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $(\"#article_uuid\"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = \"5d124d6a-39ec-4ee2-8c37-08a3e45242f6\"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $(\"a[href*='article_uuid=']\").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr(\"href\").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr(\"href\", newHref); }); }); Are you a HRB-funded researcher? Submission to HRB Open Research is open to all HRB grantholders or people working on a HRB-funded/co-funded grant on or since 1 January 2017. Sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from HRB Open Research. First Name * You must provide your first name Last Name * You must provide your last name Email * You must provide a valid email address Institution You must provide an institution. Submit Thank you! We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to HRB Open Research HRB Open Research Browse How to Publish About Contact RSS Cookie Notice Privacy Notice Legal Submit Your Research © F1000 Research Limited and its licensors ISSN 2515-4826 | Legal background var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: \"hrb\", displayName: \"HRB Open Research\", hostName: \"hrbopenresearch.org\", id: \"5\", editorialEmail: \"editorial@hrbopenresearch.org\", infoEmail: \"info@hrbopenresearch.org\" }); <!-- Sign in --> Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $(\"a[id=googleSignInButton]\").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $(\"input[id=oAuthSystem]\").val(\"GOOGLE\"); $(\"form[id=oAuthForm]\").submit(); }); $(\"a[id=facebookSignInButton]\").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $(\"input[id=oAuthSystem]\").val(\"FACEBOOK\"); $(\"form[id=oAuthForm]\").submit(); }); $(\"a[id=orcidSignInButton]\").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $(\"input[id=oAuthSystem]\").val(\"ORCID\"); $(\"form[id=oAuthForm]\").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($(\"#sign-in-form-gfb-popup\")); $(\".target-field\").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split(\"/\"); if (uris.pop() === \"login\") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(\",\",\"/\")); } }); }); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML=\"window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9ffdd199baeb09d6',t:'MTc3OTQ3Mzg1Nw=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);\";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})(); <!-- -->","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}