Cited by 34Ethics in Clinical ResearchHealth Policy Implementation SciencePsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Recruitment by GPs during consultations in a primary care randomized controlled trial comparing computerized psychological therapy with clinical psychology and routine GP care: problems and possible solutions

Open access
Hetherton, Jacquie, Matheson, Amy, Robson, Meredith·2004·Primary Health Care Research and Development

Abstract

A randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of a computerized therapy programme for depression and anxiety, ‘Beating the Blues’, compared with cognitive-behaviour therapy provided by clinical psychologists and treatment as usual by general practitioners (GPs). The aim of the paper is to describe the study, the problems that were encountered when GPs agreed to recruit participants during consultations and to outline possible solutions to these problems. After three months only five participants had been recruited prompting modification of the study design. After one year only 17 patients had been recruited and the study was discontinued. The GPs indicated that the randomization procedure compromised their traditional role of providing patients with the best possible treatment. This produced role conflict that was resolved by GPs adhering to their care-giving role at the expense of recruiting to the study. GPs also felt that discussion of research took too much time during consultations and was inappropriate given that patients were often somewhat distressed. They also did not see the three treatment arms as equally acceptable, which resulted in GPs failing to recruit patients in case they were randomized to what they considered to be inferior treatments. Competing demands that rendered the study a low priority were also reported. We incorporated suggested solutions to these problems into the study which was rerun and completed after one year with 40 patients having been recruited.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/1463423604pc168oa

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recruitment to primary care trials in the United Kingdom is routinely problematic and particularly difficult in trials of mental health.

    “Recruitment to primary care trials in the United Kingdom is routinely problematic and particularly difficult in trials of mental health [41-43].”

    From Development and evaluation of culturally sensitive psychosocial interventions for under-served people in primary care (2014) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Introduction describes recruitment difficulties in primary care trials, and the Method reports that this UK mental-health trial was abandoned after recruiting only 17 participants in a year. The paper does not establish that mental-health trials are particularly difficult to recruit for compared with other primary care trials. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Catalan, J., Gath, D., Edmonds, G. and Ennis, J. 1984a: The Primary Health Care Research and Development 2004; 5: 5-10 effects of nonprescribing of anxiolytics in general practice: I. Controlled evaluation of psychiatric and social outcome. British Journal of Psychiatry 144, 593-602.
  2. Tognini, G., Alli, C., Avanzini, F., Bettelli, G., Colombo, F., Corso, R., Marchioli, R. and Zussino, A. 1991: Randomized clinical trials in general practice: lessons from a failure. British Medical Journal 303, 969-70.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hetherton, J., Matheson, A., & Robson, M.
Affiliations
  • University of London (GB)
  • West London Mental Health NHS Trust (GB)
Venue
Primary Health Care Research and Development
Published
2004-01-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
5-10
ISSN
  • 1463-4236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-1128
OpenAlex
W2087367264
Cited by
34
References
6
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Primary Health Care Research & Development (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
participant recruitment, general practitioners, primary care, randomized controlled trials, depression, anxiety, cognitive behavioral therapy, clinical psychology, role conflict, research participation

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