Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Medical Ethics logoLink to Journal of Medical Ethics
. 2003 Aug;29(4):238–242. doi: 10.1136/jme.29.4.238

"Cold calling" in psychiatric follow up studies: is it justified?

P Tyrer 1, H Seivewright 1, B Ferguson 1, T Johnson 1
PMCID: PMC1733745  PMID: 12930861

Abstract

Objectives: To decide if cold calling was ethically justifiable and, if so, to set guidelines for researchers.

Design: The study was a cohort study of patients with neurotic disorder treated initially for 10 weeks in a randomised controlled trial.

Findings: At follow up by a research medical practitioner 18 of the 210 patients had died and of the remaining 192 patients 186 (97%) were seen or had a telephone interview. Four patients refused and two others did not have interviews but agreed to some data being obtained. However, only 104 patients (54%) responded to letters inviting them to make an appointment or to refuse contact and the remainder were followed up by cold calling, with most patients agreeing readily to the research interview. The findings illustrate the dilemma of the need to get the maximum possible data from such studies to achieve scientific validity (and thereby justify the ethics of the study) and the protection of subjects' privacy and autonomy.

Conclusions: More attention needs to be paid to consent procedures if cold calling is to be defended on ethical grounds but it is unreasonable to expect this to be obtained at the beginning of a research study in a way that satisfies the requirements for informed consent. A suggested way forward is to obtain written consent for the research at the time that cold calling takes place before beginning the research.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (104.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Culyer A. J. Equity - some theory and its policy implications. J Med Ethics. 2001 Aug;27(4):275–283. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.4.275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Edwards S. J., Lilford R. J., Thornton J., Hewison J. Informed consent for clinical trials: in search of the "best" method. Soc Sci Med. 1998 Dec;47(11):1825–1840. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00235-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ferguson P. R. Patients' perceptions of information provided in clinical trials. J Med Ethics. 2002 Feb;28(1):45–48. doi: 10.1136/jme.28.1.45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Green M. J., Mitchell G., Stocking C. B., Cassel C. K., Siegler M. Do actions reported by physicians in training conflict with consensus guidelines on ethics? Arch Intern Med. 1996 Feb 12;156(3):298–304. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lamont A., Ukoumunne O. C., Tyrer P., Thornicroft G., Patel R., Slaughter J. The geographical mobility of severely mentally ill residents in London. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2000 Apr;35(4):164–169. doi: 10.1007/s001270050199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lumley J., Bastian H. Competing or complementary? Ethical considerations and the quality of randomized trials. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996 Spring;12(2):247–263. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300009600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Oliver P. C., Piachaud J., Done J., Regan A., Cooray S., Tyrer P. Difficulties in conducting a randomized controlled trial of health service interventions in intellectual disability: implications for evidence-based practice. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2002 May;46(Pt 4):340–345. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2788.2002.00408.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Seivewright H., Tyrer P., Johnson T. Prediction of outcome in neurotic disorder: a 5-year prospective study. Psychol Med. 1998 Sep;28(5):1149–1157. doi: 10.1017/s0033291798007119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Seivewright Helen, Tyrer Peter, Johnson Tony. Change in personality status in neurotic disorders. Lancet. 2002 Jun 29;359(9325):2253–2254. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09266-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Seivewright N., Tyrer P., Ferguson B., Murphy S., Johnson T. Longitudinal study of the influence of life events and personality status on diagnostic change in three neurotic disorders. Depress Anxiety. 2000;11(3):105–113. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Twitchell G. R., Hertzog C. A., Klein J. L., Schuckit M. A. The anatomy of a follow-up. Br J Addict. 1992 Sep;87(9):1327–1333. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1992.tb02741.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Tyrer P., Alexander J. Classification of personality disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 1979 Aug;135:163–167. doi: 10.1192/bjp.135.2.163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tyrer P., Seivewright N., Ferguson B., Murphy S., Johnson A. L. The Nottingham study of neurotic disorder. Effect of personality status on response to drug treatment, cognitive therapy and self-help over two years. Br J Psychiatry. 1993 Feb;162:219–226. doi: 10.1192/bjp.162.2.219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Tyrer P., Seivewright N., Murphy S., Ferguson B., Kingdon D., Barczak P., Brothwell J., Darling C., Gregory S., Johnson A. L. The Nottingham study of neurotic disorder: comparison of drug and psychological treatments. Lancet. 1988 Jul 30;2(8605):235–240. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)92535-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Weijer C. Selecting subjects for participation in clinical research: one sphere of justice. J Med Ethics. 1999 Feb;25(1):31–36. doi: 10.1136/jme.25.1.31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Medical Ethics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES