Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26680020›Full record

Trial reportTrials2015

Health care professionals' views of the factors influencing the decision to refer patients to a stroke rehabilitation trial.

Nessa Thomas, Sarah Plant, Kate Woodward-Nutt, Yeliz Prior, Sarah Tyson

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nessa ThomasSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK. Nessa.thomas@nhs.net.
Sarah PlantSchool of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. sarah.plant@manchester.ac.uk.
Kate Woodward-NuttSchool of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. kate.woodward-nutt@manchester.ac.uk.
Yeliz PriorCentre for Health Sciences Research, University of Salford, Salford, UK. Y.Prior@salford.ac.uk.
Sarah TysonSchool of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. sarah.tyson@manchester.ac.uk.
University of Manchester · GBSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Salford · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0808-16023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective recruitment is an essential element of successful research but notoriously difficult to achieve. This article examines health care professionals' views on the factors influencing decision-making regarding referral to a stroke rehabilitation trial.

methodsSemi-structured interviews and a card-sorting task were undertaken with stroke service staff in acute and community hospital trusts. Data analysis used a thematic framework approach.

resultsTwenty-seven qualified health care professionals from 12 (6 acute and 6 community) hospital trusts and one charity participated. Four main factors emerged: patient-related, professional views, the organisation and research logistics, which all contributed to staff's decision about whether to refer patients to a trial. Clinicians identified patient-related factors as the most frequent influence and considered themselves the patients' advocate. They used their knowledge of the patient to anticipate the patients' reaction to possible participation and tended to only refer those whom they perceived would respond positively. Participants also identified experience of research, a sense of ownership of the project and a positive view of the intervention being evaluated as factors influencing referral. The need to prioritise clinical matters, meet managerial demands and cope with constant change were organisational factors impacting negatively on referral. Staff often simply forgot about recruitment in the face of other higher priorities. Quick, simple, flexible research processes that were closely aligned with existing ways of working were felt to facilitate recruitment.

conclusionsPatient- and professional-related factors were the most frequent influence on clinicians' recruitment decisions, which often had a 'gate-keeping' effect. Managerial and clinical responsibility to juggle multiple (often higher) priorities was also an important factor. To facilitate recruitment, researchers need to develop strategies to approach potential participants as directly as possible to enable them to make their own decisions about participation; ensure that research processes are as quick and simple as possible; align with existing clinical pathways and systems; and give regular reminders and ongoing support to promote recruitment.

trial registrationISRCTN, 98287938 . Registered 6 May 2015.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelChoice BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient SelectionReferral and ConsultationStroke RehabilitationEnglandFemaleHospitals, CommunityHumansInterviews as TopicMaleNurse's RoleNursing Staff, HospitalPatient AdvocacyPatient Education as Topic

Identifiers

PMID26680020
PMCPMC4683768
OpenAlexW2213698707

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.