↓ Skip to main content

Development of an online clinical trial recruitment portal for the NIHR mental health BRC

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
2 tweeters


1 Dimensions

Readers on

22 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.
Development of an online clinical trial recruitment portal for the NIHR mental health BRC
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40900-016-0024-0
Pubmed ID

Sarah Markham


In order to test whether or not new treatments for mental health disorders help patients get better according to clinician/patient selected criteria, it is often necessary to test them on patients under safe, carefully monitored conditions called clinical trials. It is necessary to find enough patients to take part in a clinical trial so that the results of the trial are reliable. The NIHR Mental Health BRC (here after abbreviated to BRC) is a centre for research in London which seeks to find out better ways to treat patients with mental health difficulties. The BRC has experienced problems trying to find sufficient numbers of patients to participate in its clinical trials as it appears that insufficient patients were being told by their doctor about opportunities to participate in clinical research. In order to help the BRC find enough patients to volunteer to take part in its clinical trials, the author (a patient representative) of this article and a clinical researcher in the nearby Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN) decided to work together to try to find the best way to let patients know more about what clinical trials are, what it is like to take part in them and which clinical trials are seeking patients to take part. The author and researcher used a report by the Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) on patient difficulties in finding clinical trials to take part in, and the recommendations it made, to guide them in building a website to give such patients the information on clinical trials they wanted (including clinical trials run by the BRC). The author and researcher also asked patients, carers, staff at the IoPPN and BRC what they thought of the website and how to make it better. They used the ideas, suggestions and criticisms to improve the website. The author and researcher also asked mental health charities and research organisations if they would advertise the final version of this website on their own websites; many said yes, they would. The manager of the BRC on reviewing the website, agreed that a final version of the website with the NIHR Mental Health BRC logo would be paid for and will form part of a new main website for the BRC in early 2016. ᅟ. Public & patient recruitment to clinical trials is viewed as one of the main barriers to the implementation of clinical trials. This difficulty is often attributed to the working culture of the NHS, rapid turnover of staff and patients and poor-gatekeeping in referring patients to suitable clinical trials. In response to the recruitment difficulties experienced by the Psychosis Studies Clinical Academic Group at the NIHR Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre, Denmark Hill, London, a member of the Office of Psychosis Studies at King's College London and a member (the author) of the King's Clinical Trials Unit, King's College London developed an initiative to create an online clinical trial recruitment portal/information hub for the NIHR Mental Health BRC. The primary purpose of this initiative being to promote patient and public awareness of and interest in participating in clinical trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 23%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 8 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 May 2020.
All research outputs
of 17,749,513 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
of 262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 271,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,749,513 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 271,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.