ArticleBMC psychiatry2014
Staff and service users' views on a 'Consent for Contact' research register within psychosis services: a qualitative study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research assistants' experiences recruiting patients with psychosis into clinical trials: a qualitative study.Trials · 2025Article
- Can a 'consent to contact' community help research teams overcome barriers to recruitment? The development and impact of the 'Research for the Future' community.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Article
- What proportion of patients with psychosis is willing to take part in research? A mental health electronic case register analysis.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Attitudes toward Potential Participant Registries.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2017Article
- Facilitating mental health research for patients, clinicians and researchers: a mixed-method study.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Consenting for contact? Linking electronic health records to a research register within psychosis services, a mixed method study.BMC health services research · 2015Article
- Linking a research register to clinical records in older adults' mental health services: a mixed-methods study.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2015Article
- Developing a new model for patient recruitment in mental health services: a cohort study using Electronic Health Records.BMJ open · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.