ArticleEvidence-based mental health2020
Consent to discuss participation in research: a pilot study.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevention and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis through optimising care: the PREVENT-IAD Synopsis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Trial
- Inclusive approaches to research and healthcare for nitrous oxide users: lessons from a longitudinal study.BMJ neurology open · 2026Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Count Me In: an inclusive approach towards patient recruitment for clinical research studies in the NHS.BMJ mental health · 2023Article
- Promoting inclusivity by ensuring that all patients with mental health issues are offered research opportunities in the NHS.Evidence-based mental health · 2022Article
- Informing National Health Service patients about participation in clinical research: A comparison of opt-in and opt-out approaches across the United Kingdom.The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 2021Article
- Ethical Issues in Consent for the Reuse of Data in Health Data Platforms.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Five models for child and adolescent data linkage in the UK: a review of existing and proposed methods.Evidence-based mental health · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.