Obstacles to recruitment in paediatric studies focusing on mental health in a physical health context: the experiences of.., 2019, Loades et al

Crawley's team churn another paper out.

Open access at https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0730-z

 

Hmmm...just from reading the above;

Aren't 'gatekeepers' supposed to keep people who shouldn't be there out? They surely shouldn't be metaphorically dragging people in off the street to get the numbers up. There's another name for people who do that that escapes me ATM, but it's not 'gatekeeper'. 'Tout' maybe?

Thematic analysis? I didn't know what it was so I googled it. The information gained is quite alarming if used as part of 'science'. Totally subjective and subject to both bias and fatigue/boredom/'it's hot and I want to go to the pub' effects. Extremely so. To such an extent I can't see it not happening if the person doing it is alive and there is any significant amount of data, beyond an hour or 2, no matter if they are acting with integrity or not. People have limitations, and thematic analysis seems designed to provoke them and produce bias.

I can see it's use in market research, but in science?

Just my concerns from a quick read of the above.

It is not surprising that EC's team is involved in this 'research'.

 

Is this an elaborate Dunning-Kruger experiment? Their entire body of work is built on doing selective filtering of participants who do not have the disease they incompetently allege expertise in yet cannot properly define.

This is the kettle criticizing the pot for not being as shiny as it is.

That's what happens when people are made to fall backwards. Even when they cheat their way through they convince themselves of their own merit despite leaving nothing but failure behind them. They have no idea what they're doing.

 

Seems like if colleagues don't like your studies they won't recruit to them. And quite right too.

 

This was a study about depression in pediatric CFS. Sounds like the recruiters were tired of the constant recruitment into studies and don't see much value or need for the study in question.

“there is a danger of getting research overload so I think it suffered a bit because it came on the back of all the other trials we’d done and we’d just finished recruiting and people heaved a sigh of relief and said can we have a little window off recruiting please”

“…there were around four or five research projects, seem to be, seemingly on the go at any one time…and that is confusing.”

“…because it’s got depression in the title and um I think um you it just seems a little bit more explanation um by inviting them to take part I’m not suggesting that they are depressed…”

“…sometimes you won’t even think of it if you’ve got a patient who clearly isn’t depressed at all is coping extremely well it doesn’t even cross your mind to enter them into something called the depression study so I think the name of the study is wrong it should be called you know mood in chronic fatigue or something to help people think it’s for everyone, we’re just as interested in people who don’t have depression as people who do. So the name was wrong”

“…it doesn’t lead to additional help or additional resource or anything, it is simply, um a snapshot of the people coming through which is very valuable …but look what’s – what’s the benefit for the client?”

Indeed, that is a good question. What has Crawley's work done for patients?

 

Perhaps cognitive dissonance is a protective measure. Bottom line is that too few people actually want to participate.

Whilst i have no direct experience, from parents forums there was often a perception that it was a Hobson' s choice situation for some, and others had been pestered so much to take part that they gave in.

I would imagine newly diagnosed are more likely to participate.