ArticleBMJ open2017
What is the impact of research champions on integrating research in mental health clinical practice? A quasiexperimental study in South London, UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
- Stepping into day treatment approach versus inpatient treatment for adults with anorexia nervosa: the DAISIES RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- "Meet us where we're at:" Towards engaging and inclusive research with young adults with a lived experience of cancer.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Autopsy of a failed trial part 1: A qualitative investigation of clinician's views on and experiences of the implementation of the DAISIES trial in UK-based intensive eating disorder services.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2023Article
- Developing a Parenting App to Support Young Children's Socioemotional and Cognitive Development in Culturally Diverse Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Protocol for a Co-design Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Learning from COVID-19 related trial adaptations to inform efficient trial design-a sequential mixed methods study.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Review
- Article
- Big data: what it can and cannot achieve.BJPsych advances · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesKey challenges for mental health healthcare professionals to implement research alongside clinical activity have been highlighted, such as insufficient time to apply research skills and lack of support and resources. We examined the impact of employing dedicated staff to promote research in community mental health clinical settings.
designQuasiexperiment before and after study.
settingSouth London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust.
participants4455 patients receiving care from 15 community mental health teams between 1 December 2013 and 31 December 2014. OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of patients approached for research participation in clinical services where research champions were present (intervention group), and where research champions were not present (comparison group).
resultsPatients in the intervention group were nearly six times more likely to be approached for research participation (Adj. OR=5.98; 95% CI 4.96 to 7.22).
conclusionsInvesting in staff that promote and drive research in clinical services increases opportunities for patients to hear about and engage in clinical research studies. However, investment needs to move beyond employing short-term staff.
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.