The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
Background: The 'Hawthorne Effect' may be an important factor affecting the generalisability of clinical research to routine practice, but has been little studied. Hawthorne Effects have been reported in previous clinical trials in dementia but to our knowledge, no attempt has been made to quantify them. Our aim was to compare minimal follow-up to intensive follow-up in participants in a placebo controlled trial of Ginkgo biloba for treating mild-moderate dementia. Methods: Participants in a dementia trial were randomised to intensive follow-up (with comprehensive assessment visits at baseline and two, four and six months post randomisation) or minimal follow-up (with an abbreviated assessment at baseline and a full assessment at six months). Our primary outcomes were cognitive functioning (ADAS-Cog) and participant and carer-rated quality of life (QOL-AD). Results: We recruited 176 participants, mainly through general practices. The main analysis was based on Intention to treat (ITT), with available data. In the ANCOVA model with baseline score as a co-variate, follow-up group had a significant effect on outcome at six months on the ADAS-Cog score (n = 140; mean difference = -2.018; 95%CI -3.914, -0.121; p = 0.037 favouring the intensive follow-up group), and on participant-rated quality of life score (n = 142; mean difference = -1.382; 95%CI -2.642, -0.122; p = 0.032 favouring minimal follow-up group). There was no significant difference on carer quality of life. Conclusion: We found that more intensive follow-up of individuals in a placebo-controlled clinical trial of Ginkgo biloba for treating mild-moderate dementia resulted in a better outcome than minimal follow-up, as measured by their cognitive functioning. Trial registration: Current controlled trials: ISRCTN45577048
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
Kok, J. S., Berg, I. J., & Scherder, E. J. A. (2013) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra · doi:10.1159/000353441 · Cited by 20,589
Hao (2015) · doi:10.1002/14651858 · Cited by 11,321
A new rating scale for Alzheimer's disease
(1984) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.141.11.1356 · Cited by 4,175
Cited by
McCambridge, J., Witton, J., & Elbourne, D. R. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015 · Cited by 2,748
Diamond, A., & Ling, D. S. (2016) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.11.005 · Cited by 1,177
Is working memory training effective?
Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0027473 · Cited by 1,101
Dunning, D. L., Griffiths, K., Kuyken, W., Crane, C., Foulkes, L., Parker, J., & Dalgleish, T. (2019) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12980 · Cited by 610
Husebo, B. S., Ballard, C., Sandvik, R., Nilsen, O. B., & Aarsland, D. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4065 · Cited by 571
Metadata
- Authors
- McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., van Haselen, R., Griffin, M., & Fisher, P.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2007-07-03
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 30-30
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2114691160
- Cited by
- 1,715
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 14.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-7-30
- The paper
- McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., van Haselen, R., Griffin, M., & Fisher, P. (2007). The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-30
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.