Search

Objectives To examine clinicians' attitudes regarding the relative benefits and risks of conventional and atypical antipsychotic medication, and the perceived validity of the CUtLASS study. To examine the attitudes of participant clinicians' regarding the operation and administration, and the potential clinical impact of the findings. Method Two hundred and sixty-two clinicians were each sent an anonymous questionnaire, and invited to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with each of to nine statements (from agree to disagree). Results Of the 112 clinicians who responded, 71% supported the CUtLASS study. Thirty-nine percent agreed with the statement that the clinical efficacy of atypicals was superior to conventional antipsychotics, while 27% disagreed and 34% were undecided. Thus, two-thirds of participating clinicians revealed no uncertainty on a key question being tested in the CUtLASS study. Further, the vast majority (97%) considered that atypicals were associated with less severe side effects. Conclusions In clinical studies, recruitment strategies relying on referrals from clinicians may find that some clinicians identify fewer patients than expected. This can lead to a relatively low yield of potential study subjects and possibly a selection bias. Surveys of clinicians approached to participate in clinical studies provide a potential mechanism to explore attitudes relevant to participant recruitment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]