Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25971412›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Consenting for contact? Linking electronic health records to a research register within psychosis services, a mixed method study.

Dan Robotham, Simon Riches, Iain Perdue, Felicity Callard, Thomas Craig, Diana Rose, Til Wykes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 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. Over promised, over-sold and underperforming? - e-health in mental health.Journal of mental health (Abingdon, England) · 2016
    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 RobothamInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, SE5, UK. dan.robotham@kcl.ac.uk.
Simon RichesInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, SE5, UK. simon.j.riches@kcl.ac.uk.
Iain PerdueInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, SE5, UK. iain.perdue@kcl.ac.uk.
Felicity CallardCentre for Medical Humanities, Durham University, Caedmon Building, Leazes Road, Durham, DH1, UK. felicity.callard@durham.ac.uk.
Thomas CraigInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, SE5, UK. thomas.craig@kcl.ac.uk.
Diana RoseInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, SE5, UK. diana.rose@kcl.ac.uk.
Til WykesInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, SE5, UK. til.wykes@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 086049/Z/08/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch registers of potential participants linked to Electronic Health Records (EHRs) provide a basis for screening and identifying people suitable for studies. Such a system relies upon people joining the register and giving permission for their record to be used in this way. This study describes the process of training clinicians to explain EHR-linked research registers to service users, and to recruit them onto the register.

methodTraining materials were developed for clinicians to help them describe the register to service users. These materials were based upon findings from focus groups reported elsewhere, they were then tested with 31 clinicians in early intervention psychosis services and each clinician discussed the register with service users on their caseload (n = 100 service users). Consultations were recorded and analysed in relation to their coverage of the training criteria. Service users also provided data on the acceptability of the process from their perspective. The content of clinicians' explanations to service users was described, and then compared against the likelihood of service users joining the register. Interpretive statistics (t-test and Chi-Squared) were used to explore differences between consultations in which service users agreed to join the register, and consultations where they did not agree to join.

resultsService users appeared more likely to join the register if they felt control over what they signed up to, this necessitated understanding that they could decide when, how often, and by whom they were contacted, that joining the register did not automatically enlist them to future studies, and that they could change their mind in future. Clinicians' explanations did not always include that researchers would be able to see the service users' EHR. Service users often confused the idea of signing up to the register and signing up to studies themselves. Confidentiality was not well explained, but service users were not always concerned by confidentiality.

conclusionEHR-linked research registers provide recruitment opportunities, and help service users to find out about research. Implementing these registers within mental health settings requires a trained clinical workforce and an informed service user population.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchElectronic Health RecordsInformation DisseminationMental Health ServicesPsychotic DisordersRegistriesAdolescentAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMental HealthMiddle AgedReferral and ConsultationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25971412
PMCPMC4432971

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.