Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31558561›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based mental health2020

Consent to discuss participation in research: a pilot study.

Sophie Walker, Jennifer Potts, Lola Martos, Alvaro Barrera, Mark Hancock, Stuart Bell, John Geddes, Andrea Cipriani, Catherine Henshall

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based mental health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Co-Production and Implementation of 'Count Me In': A Bottom-Up Approach to Inclusive Research and Participation in a National Health Service in England.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sophie WalkerDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jennifer PottsOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK, Oxford, UK.
Lola MartosOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK, Oxford, UK.
Alvaro BarreraDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mark HancockOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK, Oxford, UK.
Stuart BellOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK, Oxford, UK.
John GeddesDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrea CiprianiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5179-8321
Catherine HenshallOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK, Oxford, UK chenshall@brookes.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5659-3296
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBOxford Brookes University · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-2017-08-ST2-006Medical Research Council MC_PC_17215
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEquitable access to research studies needs to be increased for all patients. There is debate about which is the best approach to use to discuss participation in research in real-world clinical settings.

objectiveWe aimed to determine the feasibility of asking all clinical staff within one hospital Trust (an organisation that provides secondary health services within the English and Welsh National Health Service) to use a newly created form on the Trust's electronic patient records system, as a means of asking patients to consent to discuss participation in research (the opt-in approach). We also aimed to collect feedback from patients and clinicians about their views of the opt-in approach.

methodsFour pilot sites were selected in the Trust: two memory clinics, an adult mental health team and an acute adult ward. Data were collected in three phases: (1) for 6 months, pilot site staff were asked to complete a consent to discuss participation in research form with patients; (2) staff feedback on the form was collected through an online survey; and (3) patient feedback was collected through focus groups.

findingsOf 1779 patients attending services during the pilot period, 197 (11%) had a form completed by staff and 143 (8%) opted-in to finding out about research. Staff cited limited time, low priority and poor user experience of the electronic patient records system as reasons for low uptake of the form. Patients generally approved of the approach but offered suggestions for improvement.

conclusionsThere were mixed results for adopting an opt-in approach; uptake was very low, limiting its value as an effective strategy for improving access to research. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Alternative strategies to the opt-in approach, such as transparent opt out approaches, warrant consideration to maximise access to research within routine clinical care.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentMental Health ServicesPatient ParticipationPatient PreferenceResearch SubjectsAdultElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNational Health ProgramsPilot ProjectsUnited Kingdomadult psychiatry

Identifiers

PMID31558561
PMCPMC7229904
OpenAlexW2976791731

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.