Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37879674›Full record

ArticleBMJ mental health2023

Count Me In: an inclusive approach towards patient recruitment for clinical research studies in the NHS.

Verena Hinze, Catherine Henshall, Tanya Smith, Jemima Littlejohns, Zoe Collett, Helen Jones, Daniel Maughan, Roger Ede, Deborah Moll, Karl Marlowe and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ mental health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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
  6. Article
  7. 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

13 authors.

Verena HinzeDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK verena.hinze@psych.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7722-2064
Catherine HenshallOxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5659-3296
Tanya SmithOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Jemima LittlejohnsOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Zoe CollettOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9594-9467
Helen JonesOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Daniel MaughanOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Roger EdeOxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Deborah MollOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5543-2295
Karl MarloweOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Nick BroughtonOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
John GeddesDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5281-5960
Andrea CiprianiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5179-8321

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipation in clinical research is associated with better patient outcomes and higher staff retention and satisfaction rates. Nevertheless, patient recruitment to mental health studies is challenging due to a reliance on clinician or patient referrals (standard approach). To empower patients and make healthcare research more equitable, we explored a novel researcher-led approach, called 'Count Me In' (CMI).

objectiveTo evaluate a 12-month implementation of CMI in a routine clinical setting.

methodsCMI was launched in August 2021 in a mental health National Health Service (NHS) Trust in England. Patients (aged 18+) learnt about CMI at their initial clinical appointment. Unless they opted out, they became contactable for research (via research informatics searches).

findingsAfter 12 months, 368 patients opted out and 22 741 became contactable through CMI, including 2716 through the standard approach and 20 025 through electronic searches (637% increase). Of those identified via electronic searches, 738 were contacted about specific studies and 270 consented to participate. Five themes were identified based on patient and staff experiences of CMI: 'level of awareness and accessibility of CMI', 'perceptions of research and perceived engagement with CMI', 'inclusive research practice', 'engagement and incentives for research participation', and 'relationships between clinical and research settings'.

conclusionsCMI (vs standard) led to a larger and diverse patient cohort and was favoured by patients and staff. Yet a shift in the NHS research culture is needed to ensure that this diversity translates to actual research participation. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Through collaboration with other NHS Trusts and services, key funders (National Institute for Health and Care Research) and new national initiatives (Office for Life Sciences Mental Health Mission), CMI has the potential to address recruitment challenges through rapid patient recruitment into time-sensitive country-wide studies.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchState MedicineClinical Studies as TopicEnglandHumansPatient SelectionResearch PersonnelAdult psychiatry

Identifiers

PMID37879674
PMCPMC10603415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.