ArticleBMJ open2016
Facilitating mental health research for patients, clinicians and researchers: a mixed-method study.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The usage of population and disease registries as pre-screening tools for clinical trials, a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Increasing participation of people with thought disorder in clinical research.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026Review
- Apps and Digital Resources for Child Neurodevelopment, Mental Health, and Well-Being: Review, Evaluation, and Reflection on Current Resources.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Review
- Observational
- Article
- What proportion of patients with psychosis is willing to take part in research? A mental health electronic case register analysis.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Mental health research in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A review of trend and visibility over four decades.Journal of family & community medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesResearch registers using Consent for Contact (C4C) can facilitate recruitment into mental health research studies, allowing investigators to contact patients based on clinical records information. We investigated whether such a register was useful for mental health research, seeking the perspectives of patients and research investigators. SETTING AND
designIn 2012, a C4C register was developed in a large secondary mental health provider within the UK; almost 9000 patients have joined. This mixed-method study audited the effectiveness of the register.
participantsA 'mystery shopper' exercise was conducted, and patients (n=21) were recruited to ask clinicians about the availability of research opportunities. Structured interviews were conducted with patients (n=52) about their experiences of being on the register. Similar interviews were conducted with 18 investigators from 19 studies, who had attempted to use the register to recruit participants. OUTCOME MEASURES: The impact of C4C on study recruitment, and whether it helped patients learn about research.
resultsSo far, the register has provided 928 individuals with 1085 research opportunities (in 60% of cases, the individual agreed to participate in the study). Clinicians were willing to link patients to research opportunities, but often lacked information about studies. For patients, the register provided opportunities which they may not otherwise have; 27 of 52 had participated in studies since joining the register (18 participating for the first time). Most investigators used the register to supplement recruitment to their studies, but described problems in prescreening potential participants from a clinical record for complex studies.
conclusionsAlthough the register helped investigators recruit for studies, and provided patients with research opportunities, clinicians' input is still useful for identifying suitable participants. C4C registers should be adapted to provide clinicians with automatically updated information on local studies allowing them to match patients on their caseload with active studies.
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.