BACKGROUND: The difficulties of recruiting individuals into mental health trials are well documented. Few studies have collected information from those declining to take part in research, in order to understand the reasons behind this decision. AIM: To explore patients' reasons for declining to be contacted about a study of the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy as a treatment for depression. DESIGN AND SETTING: Questionnaire and telephone interview in general practices in England and Scotland. METHOD: Patients completed a short questionnaire about their reasons for not taking part in research. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a purposive sample to further explore reasons for declining. RESULTS: Of 4552 patients responding to an initial invitation to participate in research involving a talking therapy, 1642 (36%) declined contact. The most commonly selected reasons for declining were that patients did not want to take part in a research study (n = 951) and/or did not want to have a talking therapy (n = 688) (more than one response was possible). Of the decliners, 451 patients agreed to an interview about why they declined. Telephone interviews were completed with 25 patients. Qualitative analysis of the interview data indicated four main themes regarding reasons for non-participation: previous counselling experiences, negative feelings about the therapeutic encounter, perceived ineligibility, and misunderstandings about the research. CONCLUSION: Collecting information about those who decline to take part in research provides information on the acceptability of the treatment being studied. It can also highlight concerns and misconceptions about the intervention and research, which can be addressed by researchers or recruiting GPs. This may improve recruitment to studies and thus ultimately increase the evidence base.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The difficulties of recruiting individuals into mental health trials are well documented. Few studies have collected information from those declining to take part in research, in order to understand the reasons behind this decision. AIM: To explore patients' reasons for declining to be contacted about a study of the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy as a treatment for depression. DESIGN AND SETTING: Questionnaire and telephone interview in general practices in England and Scotland. METHOD:Patients completed a short questionnaire about their reasons for not taking part in research. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a purposive sample to further explore reasons for declining. RESULTS: Of 4552 patients responding to an initial invitation to participate in research involving a talking therapy, 1642 (36%) declined contact. The most commonly selected reasons for declining were that patients did not want to take part in a research study (n = 951) and/or did not want to have a talking therapy (n = 688) (more than one response was possible). Of the decliners, 451 patients agreed to an interview about why they declined. Telephone interviews were completed with 25 patients. Qualitative analysis of the interview data indicated four main themes regarding reasons for non-participation: previous counselling experiences, negative feelings about the therapeutic encounter, perceived ineligibility, and misunderstandings about the research. CONCLUSION: Collecting information about those who decline to take part in research provides information on the acceptability of the treatment being studied. It can also highlight concerns and misconceptions about the intervention and research, which can be addressed by researchers or recruiting GPs. This may improve recruitment to studies and thus ultimately increase the evidence base.
Authors: Beverly M Sibthorpe; Ross S Bailie; Maggie A Brady; Sandra A Ball; Polly Sumner-Dodd; Wayne D Hall Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2002-08-19 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Sarah Nechuta; Lanay M Mudd; Lynette Biery; Michael R Elliott; James M Lepkowski; Nigel Paneth Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Alison M McDonald; Rosemary C Knight; Marion K Campbell; Vikki A Entwistle; Adrian M Grant; Jonathan A Cook; Diana R Elbourne; David Francis; Jo Garcia; Ian Roberts; Claire Snowdon Journal: Trials Date: 2006-04-07 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jonas Czwikla; Alexandra Herzberg; Sonja Kapp; Stephan Kloep; Heinz Rothgang; Ina Nitschke; Cornelius Haffner; Falk Hoffmann Journal: Trials Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Alexis Foster; Kimberley A Horspool; Louisa Edwards; Clare L Thomas; Chris Salisbury; Alan A Montgomery; Alicia O'Cathain Journal: Trials Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Rochelle Yang; Barry L Carter; Tyler H Gums; Brian M Gryzlak; Yinghui Xu; Barcey T Levy Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Rikke Jørgensen; Povl Munk-Jørgensen; Paul H Lysaker; Kelly D Buck; Lars Hansson; Vibeke Zoffmann Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Isaac N Kwakye; Matthew Garner; David S Baldwin; Susan Bamford; Verity Pinkney; Felicity L Bishop Journal: Hum Psychopharmacol Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.672
Authors: Paul Farrand; Joanne Woodford; David Llewellyn; Martin Anderson; Shanker Venkatasubramanian; Obioha C Ukoumunne; Anna Adlam; Chris Dickens Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2016-08-04
Authors: Frida Svedin; Anders Brantnell; Paul Farrand; Oscar Blomberg; Chelsea Coumoundouros; Louise von Essen; Anna Cristina Åberg; Joanne Woodford Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 2.692