↓ Skip to main content

Service users’ and carers’ views on research towards stratified medicine in psychiatry: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

6 tweeters


1 Dimensions

Readers on

32 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.
Service users’ and carers’ views on research towards stratified medicine in psychiatry: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Research Notes, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1496-y
Pubmed ID

Diana Rose, Constantina Papoulias, James MacCabe, Jennifer Walke


Approximately 30 % of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia receive little to no benefit from current medications. There is therefore an urgent need to develop more precisely targeted and effective treatments. Identifying biomarkers to predict response to treatment and stratify patients into groups may be a way forward. However, we know little about service users' and carers' attitudes regarding such a 'stratified medicine' approach for psychiatry-nor how this might impact on their willingness to participate in stratified medicine research. This paper presents psychiatric service user and carer views on research to develop stratified medicine for treatment resistant schizophrenia, and explores the conditions under which people would be prepared to participate in a trial and their willingness to undergo various research procedures. Participatory methods were used throughout. A consultation was undertaken with an existing Service User Advisory Group (SUAG) in order to establish a topic guide. Service user focus groups were then conducted by service user researchers in Manchester, London and Edinburgh (totalling 18 people) and one carer focus group in London, attended by eight participants. Focus groups were digitally recorded, the transcripts analysed in NVivo 10 using a simple thematic analysis, and quotations de-identified to protect participants. The data reflected enthusiasm for the potential of stratified medicine and both service users and carers demonstrated a strong desire to help others. However, some service users and carers feared poor performance on neuropsychological assessments, and reported that certain medication side effects might discourage them from undergoing procedures demanding immobility and concentration. Concerns were voiced that stratified medicine could encourage an overemphasis on biological symptoms, at the expense of psychosocial factors and subjective experience. People with experience of treatment resistant schizophrenia would welcome stratified medicine research; however researchers should take into account how such experience might inflect service users' willingness to undergo various procedures in the context of this research. These results reinforce the value of service user perspectives in the development and evaluation of novel treatment approaches.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 25%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 November 2015.
All research outputs
of 14,212,551 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
of 3,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 249,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,212,551 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,228 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
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 249,635 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them