↓ Skip to main content

Linking a research register to clinical records in older adults’ mental health services: a mixed-methods study

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Linking a research register to clinical records in older adults’ mental health services: a mixed-methods study
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13195-015-0103-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dan Robotham, Joanne Evans, Andrew Watson, Iain Perdue, Thomas Craig, Diana Rose, Til Wykes

Abstract

Patients can provide consent to have their clinical records linked to a research register, a process known as consent for contact (C4C). There is evidence about how to engage people with mental illness in C4C, but nothing specific to older adults. This is a priority area for research (for example, dementia trials), although sign-up rates to C4C are lower than for younger populations. Through this study we seek to understand these disparities. This was a two-stage cross-sectional observational study. In phase one, focus groups with service users, carers and clinicians informed a framework for clinicians to explain C4C to those on their caseload. In phase two, clinicians explained C4C to 26 service users (and carers where applicable). These conversations were recorded, and their content was analysed. Service users and carers were then interviewed to provide further feedback on their conversations with clinicians. A total of 31 service users, 24 carers and 13 clinical staff took part across the two phases. In phase one, service users and carers sought assurance of the right to refuse participation in further studies (after joining C4C). Clinicians expressed concerns over legal and practical implications of ascertaining mental capacity and best interest. In phase two, clinicians' explanations were less thorough than similar explanations given to younger adults with psychosis. Clinicians omitted details of service users' right to stipulate contact arrangements, which was significantly associated with whether service users/carers agreed to join. Common reasons for joining C4C included altruism and the chance to speak to new people. Few participants refused to join, but reasons included avoidance of stress (potentially alleviated through the presence of a carer). Implementing C4C in older adults' services requires clinicians to deliver concise, simple explanations to individuals and their carers where applicable. Older adults can be suspicious of unsolicited contact; thus, explanations must emphasise freedom to negotiate suitable contact arrangements. Hearing about research opportunities can be in the best interests of older adults, but communicating these opportunities requires a tailored approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 19 33%
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 10 April 2015.
All research outputs
#13,431,543
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#1,072
of 1,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,300
of 264,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#24
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,220 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 264,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.