Developing a new model for patient recruitment in mental health services: A cohort study using Electronic Health Records

BMJ Open

Volumn 4, Issue 12, 2014, Pages

  Callard, Felicity ^a   Broadbent, Matthew ^b   Denis, Mike ^c   Hotopf, Matthew ^b   Soncul, Murat ^d   Wykes, Til ^b   Lovestone, Simon ^e   Stewart, Robert ^b  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c Oxford Academic Health Science Network   (United Kingdom)

^d SOUTH LONDON AND MAUDSLEY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONSENT FOR CONTACT; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFANT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL ETHICS; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MIDDLE AGED; NEWBORN; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PRESCHOOL CHILD; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNITED KINGDOM; UTILIZATION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COHORT STUDIES; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ORGANIZATIONAL; PATIENT SELECTION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84920506978     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005654     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. uBiome. http://ubiome.com
2. Higginson IJ, Evans CJ, Grande G, et al. Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: the MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews. BMC Med 2013;11:111.
3. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, et al. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:1143-56.
4. Zerhouni EA. Translational research: moving discovery to practice. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007;81:126-8.
5. Department of Health. The NHS Constitution for England. Department of Health, 2013.
6. Thomas R, Walport M. Data Sharing Review Report. London: Ministry of Justice, 2008.
7. Buckley BS, Murphy AW, MacFarlane AE. Public attitudes to the use in research of personal health information from general practitioners' records: a survey of the Irish general public. J Med Ethics 2011;37:50-5.
8. Armstrong V, Barnett J, Cooper H, et al. Public perspectives on the governance of biomedical research: a qualitative study in a deliberative context. London: Wellcome Trust, 2007.
9. Willison DJ, Schwartz L, Abelson J, et al. Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: what is the opinion of the Canadian public? J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:706-12.
10. New economics foundation. Who sees what: exploring public views on personal electronic health records. London: New Economics Foundation, 2010.
11. Academy of Medical Sciences. Personal data for public good: using health information in medical research. London: The Academy of Medical Sciences, 2006.
12. Hewison J, Haines A. Overcoming barriers to recruitment in health research. BMJ 2006;333:300-2.
13. Knowles RL, Bull C, Wren C, et al. Ethics, governance and consent in the UK: implications for research into the longer-term outcomes of congenital heart defects. Arch Dis Child 2011;96:14-20.
14. Academy of Medical Sciences. A new pathway for the regulation and governance of health research. London: The Academy of Medical Sciences, 2011.
15. Cheah S, O'Donoghue S, Daudt H, et al. Permission to contact (PTC)-a strategy to enhance patient engagement in translational research. Biopreserv Biobank 2013;11:245-2.
16. LeBlanc J, Dee S, Braun L, et al. Impact of a Permission to Contact (PTC) platform on biobank enrollment and efficiency. Biopreserv Biobank 2013;11:144-8.
17. UK Biobank. Biobank Information Leaflet, 2010. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Participant-information-leaflet.pdf?phpMyAdmin=trmKQlYdjjnQIgJ%2CfAzikMhEnx6
18. Brooks CJ, Stephens JW, Price DE, et al. Use of a patient linked data warehouse to facilitate diabetes trial recruitment from primary care. Prim Care Diabetes 2009;3:245-8.
19. Embi PJ, Jain A, Clark J, et al. Effect of a clinical trial alert system on physician participation in trial recruitment. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2272-7.
20. McGregor J, Brooks C, Chalasani P, et al. The Health Informatics Trial Enhancement Project (HITE): using routinely collected primary care data to identify potential participants for a depression trial. Trials 2010;11:39.
21. Ainsworth J, Buchan I. Preserving consent-for-consent with feasibility-assessment and recruitment in clinical studies: FARSITE architecture. Stud Health Technol Inform 2009;147:137-48.
22. Stuardi T, Cox H, Torgerson DJ. Database recruitment: a solution to poor recruitment in randomized trials? Fam Pract 2011;28:329-33.
23. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. New Working Party on Biodata. Secondary New Working Party on Biodata 2013. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/news/new-working-party-biodata
24. Caldicott F. Information: to share or not to share? The information governance review. London: Department of Health, 2013.
25. Department of Health. Information: to share or not to share? Government response to the Caldicott Review. Department of Health, Great Britain, 2013.
26. Health Research Authority. The HRA welcomes the publication of Dame Fiona Caldicott 's Information Governance Review. 2013.
27. Stewart R, Soremekun M, Perera G, et al. The South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Biomedical Research Centre (SLAM BRC) case register: development and descriptive data. BMC Psychiatry 2009;9:51.
28. Chang CK, Hayes RD, Broadbent M, et al. All-cause mortality among people with serious mental illness (SMI), substance use disorders, and depressive disorders in southeast London: a cohort study. BMC Psychiatry 2010;10:77.
29. Fernandes AC, Cloete D, Broadbent MT, et al. Development and evaluation of a de-identification procedure for a case register sourced from mental health electronic records. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13:71.
30. Papoulias C, Robotham D, Drake G, et al. Staff and service users' views on a 'Consent for Contact' research register within psychosis services: a qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry 2014. In press.
31. Department for Constitutional Affairs, Great Britain. Mental Capacity Act 2005: code of practice. London: TSO, 2007.
32. Ipsos MORI. The use of personal health information in medical research: general public consultation. Final report. London: Medical Research Council, 2007.
33. Callard F, Rose D, Wykes T. Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: involving service users in all phases of translational research. Health Expect 2012;15:389-400.
34. Rothstein MA. Is deidentification sufficient to protect health privacy in research? Am J Bioeth 2010;10:3-11.
35. Hill EM, Turner EL, Martin RM, et al. "Let's get the best quality research we can": public awareness and acceptance of consent to use existing data in health research: a systematic review and qualitative study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:72.
36. Williams B, Irvine L, McGinnis AR, et al. When " no" might not quite mean " no"; the importance of informed and meaningful non-consent: results from a survey of individuals refusing participation in a health-related research project. BMC Health Serv Res 2007;7:59.
37. Patterson S, Kramo K, Soteriou T, et al. The great divide: a qualitative investigation of factors influencing researcher access to potential randomised controlled trial participants in mental health settings. J Ment Health 2010;19:532-41.