Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25539869›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2014

Staff and service users' views on a 'Consent for Contact' research register within psychosis services: a qualitative study.

Constantina Papoulias, Dan Robotham, Gareth Drake, Diana Rose, Til Wykes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Attitudes toward Potential Participant Registries.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Constantina PapouliasDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK. konstantina.papoulia@kcl.ac.uk.
Dan RobothamDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK. dan.robotham@kcl.ac.uk.
Gareth DrakeDepartment of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK. g.drake.12@ucl.ac.uk.
Diana RoseService User Research Enterprise, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK. diana.rose@kcl.ac.uk.
Til WykesDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK. til.wykes@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment to mental health research can be challenging. 'Consent for Contact' (C4C) is a novel framework which may expedite recruitment and contribute to equitable access to research. This paper discusses stakeholder perspectives on using a C4C model in services for people with psychosis.

methodThis is a cross sectional study investigating the views of service users and staff using qualitative methods. Eight focus groups were recruited: five with service users (n = 26) and three with clinicians (n = 17). Purposive sampling was applied in order to reflect the local population in terms of ethnicity, experience of psychiatric services and attitudes towards research.

resultsStaff and service users alike associated the principle of 'consent for contact' with greater service user autonomy and favourable conditions for research recruitment. Fears around coercion and inappropriate uses of clinical records were common and most marked in service users identifying as having a negative view to research participation. Staff working in inpatient services reported that consenting for future contact might contribute to paranoid ideation. All groups agreed that implementation should highlight safeguards and the opt-in nature of the register.

conclusionsStaff and service users responded positively to C4C. Clinicians explaining C4C to service users should allay anxieties around coercion, degree of commitment, and use of records. For some service users, researcher access to records is likely to be the most challenging aspect of the consultation.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to HealthCoercionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHospitalizationHumansInformed ConsentMaleMedical Staff, HospitalMental Health ServicesPatient SelectionPsychotic DisordersQualitative ResearchReferral and Consultation

Identifiers

PMID25539869
PMCPMC4296527

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.