↓ Skip to main content

A pilot cluster randomised trial to assess the effect of a structured communication approach on quality of life in secure mental health settings: The Comquol Study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A pilot cluster randomised trial to assess the effect of a structured communication approach on quality of life in secure mental health settings: The Comquol Study
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-1046-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas MacInnes, Catherine Kinane, Janet Parrott, Jacqueline Mansfield, Tom Craig, Sandra Eldridge, Ian Marsh, Claire Chan, Natalia Hounsome, George Harrison, Stefan Priebe

Abstract

There is a lack of research in forensic settings examining therapeutic relationships. A structured communication approach, placing patients' perspectives at the heart of discussions about their care, was used to improve patients' quality of life in secure settings. The objectives were to: • Establish the feasibility of the trial design • Determine the variability of the outcomes of interest • Estimate the costs of the intervention • If necessary, refine the intervention METHODS: A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted. Data was collected from July 2012 to January 2015 from participants in 6 medium secure in-patient services in London and Southern England. 55 patients and 47 nurses were in the intervention group with 57 patients and 45 nurses in the control group. The intervention comprised 6 nurse-patient meetings over a 6 month period. Patients rated their satisfaction with a range of domains followed by discussions on improving patient identified problems. Assessments took place at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Participants were not blind to their allocated group. The primary outcome was self-reported quality of life collected by a researcher blind to participants' allocation status. The randomisation procedures and intervention approach functioned well. The measures used were understood by the participants and gave relevant outcome information. The response rates were good with low patient withdrawal rates. The quality of life estimated treatment effect was 0.2 (95 % CI: -0.4 to 0.8) at 6 months and 0.4 (95 % CI: -0.3 to 1.1) indicating the likely extreme boundaries of effect in the main trial. The estimated treatment effect of the primary outcome is clinically important, and a positive effect of the intervention is not ruled out. The estimate of the ICC for the primary outcome at 6 and 12 months was 0.04 (0.00 to 0.17) and 0.05 (0.00 to 0.18). The cost of the intervention was £529 per patient. The trial design was viable as the basis for a full-scale trial. A full trial is justified to estimate the effect of the intervention with greater certainty. The variability of the outcomes could be used to calculate numbers needed for a full-scale trial. Ratings of need for therapeutic security may be useful in any future study. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34145189 . Retrospectively registered 22 June 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 22%
Psychology 12 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 16 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2017.
All research outputs
#14,937,645
of 24,187,394 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,222
of 5,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,417
of 327,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#60
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,187,394 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.