Readiness to Participate in Psychiatric Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The feasibility of clinical trials depends, among other factors, on the number of eligible patients, the recruitment process, and the readiness of patients to participate in research. Seeking patients' views about their experience in research projects may allow investigators to develop more effective recruitment and retention strategies. METHODS: A total of 100 patients consecutively admitted to a psychiatric university hospital were interviewed with respect to their willingness to participate in a study. For a different study scenario, patients were asked whether they would be ready to participate if such a study were organized in the service and to indicate their reasons for refusing or for participating. RESULTS: The general readiness to participate in a study ranged between 70% and 96%. The prospect of remuneration did not notably augment the potential consent rate. The most common and spontaneous motivation for agreeing to take part in a study was to help science progress and to allow future patients to benefit from improved diagnosis and treatment (87%). The presence or lack of a financial incentive was rarely chosen as an argument to agree (23%) or to refuse (7%) to participate. Patients relied mainly on their treating physicians when contemplating possible participation in a study (family physician [65%] and hospital physician [54%]). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and, in particular, treating doctors can play an important role in facilitating the recruitment process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".