Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24139174›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2013

Acceptability and perceived barriers and facilitators to creating a national research register to enable 'direct to patient' enrolment into research: the Scottish Health Research Register (SHARE).

Aileen Grant, Jenny Ure, Donald J Nicolson, Janet Hanley, Aziz Sheikh, Brian McKinstry, Frank Sullivan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Aileen GrantPopulation Health Sciences, Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee, The Mackenzie Building, KirstySemple Way, Dundee DD2 4BF, Scotland. a.m.grant@dundee.ac.uk.
Jenny Ure
Donald J Nicolson
Janet Hanley
Aziz Sheikh
Brian McKinstry
Frank Sullivan
Centre for Inflammation Research · GBHarvard University · USNHS Lothian · GBUniversity of Dundee · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Hull · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZG/2/509Medical Research Council G0800803Medical Research Council MC_PC_13040Medical Research Council MR/K007017/1Medical Research Council MR/M501633/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifficulties with recruitment pose a major, increasingly recognised challenge to the viability of research. We sought to explore whether a register of volunteers interested in research participation, with data linkage to electronic health records to identify suitable research participants, would prove acceptable to healthcare staff, patients and researchers.

methodsWe undertook a qualitative study in which a maximum variation sampling approach was adopted. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with patients, general practitioners (GP), practice managers and health service researchers in two Scottish health boards. Analysis was primarily thematic to identify a range of issues and concerns for all stakeholder groups.

resultsThe concept of a national research register was, in general, acceptable to all stakeholder groups and was widely regarded as beneficial for research and for society. Patients, however, highlighted a number of conditions which should be met in the design of a register to expedite confidence and facilitate recruitment. They also gave their perceptions on how a register should operate and be promoted, favouring a range of media. GPs and practice managers were primarily concerned with the security and confidentiality of patient data and the impact a register may have on their workload. Researchers were supportive of the initiative seeing advantages in more rapid access to a wider pool of patients. They did raise concerns that GPs may be able to block access to personal patient data held in general practice clinical systems and that the register may not be representative of the whole population.

conclusionsThis work suggests that patients, healthcare staff and researchers have a favourable view of the potential benefits of a national register to identify people who are potentially eligible and willing to participate in health related research. It has highlighted a number of issues for the developers to incorporate in the design of research registers.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionRegistriesData CollectionElectronic Health RecordsFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchScotlandVolunteers

Identifiers

PMID24139174
PMCPMC3854488
OpenAlexW2143019611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.