Trial reportBMJ open2022
Evaluating the attitudes of mental health professionals towards trials of MDMA: a randomised vignette trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy: Potential Benefits and Challenges in Mental Health Treatment.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
- The prescription of psychedelic therapies in Australia and New Zealand: A brief survey of psychiatrists.Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare attitudes of mental health (MH) professionals towards trials of methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted psychotherapy (MDMA-AP), with a neutrally labelled pharmacotherapy trial.
designA randomised controlled vignette study design, with experimenters blinded to group condition.
settingParticipants were recruited online via professional societies.
participantsPsychiatrists, psychologists and MH researchers from across Australia.
interventionsParticipants were randomly allocated to read a vignette about a trial of either MDMA-AP or a neutrally labelled pharmacotherapy. OUTCOMES: Comparison of the difference in four attitudes towards MDMA-AP and control: How likely they were to (1) recommend participating, or (2) object to participating in the trial; (3) their predicted efficacy; and (4) concerns about the safety of the trial.
resultsThere were no overall differences between professional's attitudes towards MDMA-AP (n=51) and the control pharmacotherapy (n=43) trial vignettes. Psychiatrists were less likely to recommend participation in the MDMA-AP than the control trial (
conclusionsPsychiatrists, but not psychologists or researchers showed more hesitancy in recommending trials of MDMA-AP versus an unknown pharmacotherapy. Experienced MH professionals were more likely to have negative views about MDMA-AP trials than less experienced MH professionals. This may reflect the experience of prior unfulfilled pharmacotherapy innovation or exuberance associated with fewer years of practice. Research into, and implementation of, MDMA-AP may face barriers with certain MH professionals, which will need be addressed if MDMA-AP continues to show promise as an efficacious treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study design was registered with the ANZCTR (ACTRN12620001068954).
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.