↓ Skip to main content

Consenting for contact? Linking electronic health records to a research register within psychosis services, a mixed method study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Consenting for contact? Linking electronic health records to a research register within psychosis services, a mixed method study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0858-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dan Robotham, Simon Riches, Iain Perdue, Felicity Callard, Thomas Craig, Diana Rose, Til Wykes

Abstract

Research registers of potential participants linked to Electronic Health Records (EHRs) provide a basis for screening and identifying people suitable for studies. Such a system relies upon people joining the register and giving permission for their record to be used in this way. This study describes the process of training clinicians to explain EHR-linked research registers to service users, and to recruit them onto the register. Training materials were developed for clinicians to help them describe the register to service users. These materials were based upon findings from focus groups reported elsewhere, they were then tested with 31 clinicians in early intervention psychosis services and each clinician discussed the register with service users on their caseload (n = 100 service users). Consultations were recorded and analysed in relation to their coverage of the training criteria. Service users also provided data on the acceptability of the process from their perspective. The content of clinicians' explanations to service users was described, and then compared against the likelihood of service users joining the register. Interpretive statistics (t-test and Chi-Squared) were used to explore differences between consultations in which service users agreed to join the register, and consultations where they did not agree to join. Service users appeared more likely to join the register if they felt control over what they signed up to, this necessitated understanding that they could decide when, how often, and by whom they were contacted, that joining the register did not automatically enlist them to future studies, and that they could change their mind in future. Clinicians' explanations did not always include that researchers would be able to see the service users' EHR. Service users often confused the idea of signing up to the register and signing up to studies themselves. Confidentiality was not well explained, but service users were not always concerned by confidentiality. EHR-linked research registers provide recruitment opportunities, and help service users to find out about research. Implementing these registers within mental health settings requires a trained clinical workforce and an informed service user population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 28%
Professor 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 10 26%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 7 18%
Psychology 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 6 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 May 2015.
All research outputs
#6,398,191
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,076
of 4,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,939
of 233,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#58
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 233,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.