Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33203433›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2020

The RESPECT study: a feasibility randomised controlled trial of a sexual health promotion intervention for people with serious mental illness in community mental health services in the UK.

Elizabeth Hughes, Natasha Mitchell, Samantha Gascoyne, Thirimon Moe-Byrne, Amanda Edmondson, Elizabeth Coleman, Lottie Millett, Shehzad Ali, Francine Cournos, Ceri Dare and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Breaking down barriers to conversations about sexual and reproductive health.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

19 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Elizabeth HughesSchool of Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. e.c.hughes@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4480-0806
Natasha MitchellDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England.
Samantha GascoyneDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England.
Thirimon Moe-ByrneDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England.
Amanda EdmondsonCentre for Applied Research in Health, School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, England.
Elizabeth ColemanDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England.
Lottie MillettDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, England.
Shehzad AliDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England.
Francine CournosNew York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University, New York, USA.
Ceri Dare, Experts by experience, England.
Catherine HewittDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England.
Sonia JohnsonDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, England.
Harminder Dosanjh Kaur, Experts by experience, England.
Karen McKinnonNew York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University, New York, USA.
Catherine MercerInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, England.
Fiona NolanSchool of Health and Social Care, University of Essex, Colchester, England.
Charlotte Walker, Experts by experience, England.
Milton WainbergNew York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University, New York, USA.
Judith WatsonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England.
University of York · GBExpert System (Italy) · ITNew York Psychoanalytic Society and Institute · USUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Essex · GBUniversity of Huddersfield · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Department of Health 14/172/01Health Technology Assessment Programme 14/172/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with serious mental illness (SMI) have sexual health needs but there is little evidence to inform effective interventions to address them. In fact, there are few studies that have addressed this topic for people with SMI outside USA and Brazil. Therefore, the aim of the study was to establish the acceptability and feasibility of a trial of a sexual health promotion intervention for people with SMI in the UK.

methodThe RESPECT study was a two-armed randomised controlled, open feasibility trial (RCT) comparing Sexual health promotion intervention (3 individual sessions of 1 h) (I) or treatment as usual (TAU) for adults aged 18 or over, with SMI, within community mental health services in four UK cities. The main outcome of interest was the percentage who consented to participate, and retained in each arm of the trial, retention for the intervention, and completeness of data collection. A nested qualitative study obtained the views of participants regarding the acceptability of the study using individual telephone interviews conducted by lived experience researchers.

resultsOf a target sample of 100, a total of 72 people were enrolled in the trial over 12 months. Recruitment in the initial months was low and so an extension was granted. However this extension meant that the later recruited participants would only be followed up to the 3 month point. There was good retention in the intervention and the study as a whole; 77.8% of those allocated to intervention (n = 28) received it. At three months, 81.9% (30 I; 29 TAU) and at 6 months, 76.3% (13 I and 16 TAU) completed the follow-up data collection. No adverse events were reported. There was good completeness of the data. The sexual health outcomes for the intervention group changed in favour of the intervention. Based on analysis of the qualitative interviews, the methods of recruitment, the quality of the participant information, the data collection, and the intervention were deemed to be acceptable to the participants (n = 22).

conclusionsThe target of 100 participants was not achieved within the study's timescale. However, effective strategies were identified that improved recruitment in the final few months. Retention rates and completeness of data in both groups indicate that it is acceptable and feasible to undertake a study promoting sexual health for people with SMI. A fully powered RCT is required to establish effectiveness of the intervention in adoption of safer sex. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15747739 prospectively registered 5th July 2016.

Indexed as

Community Mental Health ServicesMental DisordersSexual HealthAdolescentAdultBrazilFeasibility StudiesHealth PromotionHumansUnited KingdomFeasibilityMental healthPsychosisRandomised controlled trialSexual behaviorSexual health

Identifiers

PMID33203433
PMCPMC7673083
OpenAlexW3097208044

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.