Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25834643›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2015

Linking a research register to clinical records in older adults' mental health services: a mixed-methods study.

Dan Robotham, Joanne Evans, Andrew Watson, Iain Perdue, Thomas Craig, Diana Rose, Til Wykes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Dan RobothamKing's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Henry Wellcome Building, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF UK.
Joanne EvansKing's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Henry Wellcome Building, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF UK.
Andrew WatsonUCL, Institute of Neurology, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG UK.
Iain PerdueKing's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Henry Wellcome Building, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF UK.
Thomas CraigKing's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Henry Wellcome Building, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF UK.
Diana RoseKing's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Henry Wellcome Building, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF UK.
Til WykesKing's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Henry Wellcome Building, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatients can provide consent to have their clinical records linked to a research register, a process known as consent for contact (C4C). There is evidence about how to engage people with mental illness in C4C, but nothing specific to older adults. This is a priority area for research (for example, dementia trials), although sign-up rates to C4C are lower than for younger populations. Through this study we seek to understand these disparities.

methodsThis was a two-stage cross-sectional observational study. In phase one, focus groups with service users, carers and clinicians informed a framework for clinicians to explain C4C to those on their caseload. In phase two, clinicians explained C4C to 26 service users (and carers where applicable). These conversations were recorded, and their content was analysed. Service users and carers were then interviewed to provide further feedback on their conversations with clinicians. A total of 31 service users, 24 carers and 13 clinical staff took part across the two phases.

resultsIn phase one, service users and carers sought assurance of the right to refuse participation in further studies (after joining C4C). Clinicians expressed concerns over legal and practical implications of ascertaining mental capacity and best interest. In phase two, clinicians' explanations were less thorough than similar explanations given to younger adults with psychosis. Clinicians omitted details of service users' right to stipulate contact arrangements, which was significantly associated with whether service users/carers agreed to join. Common reasons for joining C4C included altruism and the chance to speak to new people. Few participants refused to join, but reasons included avoidance of stress (potentially alleviated through the presence of a carer).

conclusionsImplementing C4C in older adults' services requires clinicians to deliver concise, simple explanations to individuals and their carers where applicable. Older adults can be suspicious of unsolicited contact; thus, explanations must emphasise freedom to negotiate suitable contact arrangements. Hearing about research opportunities can be in the best interests of older adults, but communicating these opportunities requires a tailored approach.

Identifiers

PMID25834643
PMCPMC4381414

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.