Trial reportPsychiatry research2018
Assessing the subjective experience of participating in a clinical trial (AVATAR).
Trial report in Psychiatry research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Process Evaluation of Digital Mental Health Interventions for Psychosis: Scoping Review With Framework Synthesis.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Research assistants' experiences recruiting patients with psychosis into clinical trials: a qualitative study.Trials · 2025Article
- Article
- Participating in Longitudinal Observational Research on Psychiatric Rehabilitation: Quantitative Results From a Patient Perspective Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Perspectives of Trial Staff on the Barriers to Recruitment in a Digital Intervention for Psychosis and How to Work Around Them: Qualitative Study Within a Trial.JMIR human factors · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study assessed the subjective experience of participating in a clinical trial, specifically positive and negative experiences and the experience of audio recording assessment sessions. The study was cross-sectional from a single blinded randomised controlled trial. Forty participants with a primary diagnosis of non-organic psychosis completed baseline and 12-week follow-up questionnaires assessing their experiences. Participants rated research interviews as moderately helpful in facilitating their therapy and talking to the interviewer as moderately helpful at baseline and 12-week follow-up. Self-report ratings of the degree of self-realisation promoted by the research questionnaires were significantly higher at 12-week follow-up compared to baseline. Participants adjusted quickly to being audio recorded and rated interviews as not at all disruptive and not at all to slightly intrusive. On average there were neutral emotional reactions, positive gains and minimal inconveniences as a result of participation. The main reasons for taking part were: 'To help myself', 'I was curious' and 'To help others'. The findings offer support to previous research reporting that individuals with mental health problems find participating in clinical trials a beneficial experience. This may alleviate concerns that participation in similar studies may be personally intrusive or harmful.
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.