Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33666555›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2021

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.

Stephanie Allan, Hamish Mcleod, Simon Bradstreet, Imogen Bell, Helen Whitehill, Alison Wilson-Kay, Andrea Clark, Claire Matrunola, Emma Morton, John Farhall and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Stephanie AllanUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1016-0708
Hamish McleodUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4225-1815
Simon BradstreetUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0339-1882
Imogen BellOrygen, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7567-0517
Helen WhitehillUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0864-7322
Alison Wilson-KayUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0879-2861
Andrea ClarkUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4558-3049
Claire MatrunolaUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3617-7911
Emma MortonUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6179-1983
John FarhallLa Trobe, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2439-2830
John GleesonAustralian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7969-492X
Andrew GumleyUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8888-938X
University of Glasgow · GBAustralian Catholic University · AULa Trobe University · AUOrygen · AUUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment processes for clinical trials of digital interventions for psychosis are seldom described in detail in the literature. Although trial staff have expertise in describing barriers to and facilitators of recruitment, a specific focus on understanding recruitment from the point of view of trial staff is rare, and because trial staff are responsible for meeting recruitment targets, a lack of research on their point of view is a key limitation.

objectiveThe primary aim of this study was to understand recruitment from the point of view of trial staff and discover what they consider important.

methodsWe applied pluralistic ethnographic methods, including analysis of trial documents, observation, and focus groups, and explored the recruitment processes of the EMPOWER (Early Signs Monitoring to Prevent Relapse in Psychosis and Promote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery) feasibility trial, which is a digital app-based intervention for people diagnosed with schizophrenia.

resultsRecruitment barriers were categorized into 2 main themes: service characteristics (lack of time available for mental health staff to support recruitment, staff turnover, patient turnover [within Australia only], management styles of community mental health teams, and physical environment) and clinician expectations (filtering effects and resistance to research participation). Trial staff negotiated these barriers through strategies such as emotional labor (trial staff managing feelings and expressions to successfully recruit participants) and trying to build relationships with clinical staff working within community mental health teams.

conclusionsResearchers in clinical trials for digital psychosis interventions face numerous recruitment barriers and do their best to work flexibly and to negotiate these barriers and meet recruitment targets. The recruitment process appeared to be enhanced by trial staff supporting each other throughout the recruitment stage of the trial.

Indexed as

mental healthmHealthpsychosisrecruitmentschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID33666555
PMCPMC7980120
OpenAlexW3135417916

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.