Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25735517›Full record

ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2015

Customising informed consent procedures for people with schizophrenia in India.

Sudipto Chatterjee, Berit Kieselbach, Smita Naik, Shuba Kumar, Sujit John, Madhumitha Balaji, Mirja Koschorke, Hamid Dabholkar, Mathew Varghese, Vikram Patel and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

12 authors.

Sudipto ChatterjeeSangath, Goa, India. sudipto_dr@yahoo.com.au.
Berit KieselbachWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. beritkieselbach@gmail.com.
Smita NaikSangath, Goa, India. smitan@sangath.com.
Shuba KumarSamarth, Chennai, India. shubakumar@samarthngo.org.
Sujit JohnSchizophrenia Research Foundation, Chennai, India. Sujitjohn@scarfindia.org.
Madhumitha BalajiSangath, Goa, India. madhs@hotmail.com.
Mirja KoschorkeInstitute of Psychiatry, Kings' College, London, UK. mirja.koschorke@kcl.ac.uk.
Hamid DabholkarParivartan, Satara, India. hamid.dabholkar@gmail.com.
Mathew VargheseNational Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India. mat.varg@yahoo.com.
Vikram PatelSangath, Goa, India. vikram.patel@lshtm.ac.uk.
Graham ThornicroftInstitute of Psychiatry, Kings' College, London, UK. graham.thornicroft@kcl.ac.uk.
Rangaswamy TharaSchizophrenia Research Foundation, Chennai, India. thara@scarfindia.org.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 084674Wellcome Trust 091834Wellcome Trust 100714World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is little information on how the ethical and procedural challenges involved in the informed participation of people with schizophrenia in clinical trials are addressed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The informed consent procedure used in the collaborative community care for people with schizophrenia in India (COPSI) RCT was developed keeping these challenges in mind. We describe the feasibility of conducting the procedure from the trial, researcher and participants perspectives and describe the reasons for people consenting to participate in the trial or refusing to do so.

methodsThree sources of information were used to describe the feasibility of the COPSI consent procedure: key process indicators for the trial perspective, data from a specially designed post-interview form for participant's observations and focus group discussion (FGD) with the research interviewers. Categorical data were analysed by calculating frequencies and proportions, while the qualitative data from the FGD, and the reasons for participation or refusal were analysed using a thematic content analysis approach.

findings434 people with schizophrenia and their primary caregiver(s) were approached for participation in the trial. Consent interviews were conducted with 332, of whom 303 (91%) agreed to participate in the trial. Expectation of improvement was the most common reason for agreeing to participate in the trial, while concerns related to the potential disclosure of the illness, especially for women, were an important reason for refusing consent.

conclusionsThe COPSI consent procedure demonstrates preliminary, observational information about the feasibility of customising informed consent procedures for people with schizophrenia LMIC contexts. This and other similar innovations need to be refined and rigorously tested to develop evidence-based guidelines for informed consent procedures in such settings.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentMental CompetencyAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSchizophreniaSchizophrenic PsychologyTreatment RefusalCapacity for consentCOPSI trialIndiaInformed consent procedureSchizophrenia

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.