↓ 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 (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Professor 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 13 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 8 16%
Psychology 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 14 28%
Attention Score in Context

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
#12,865,434
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,256
of 7,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,389
of 264,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#63
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 264,439 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.