> Hi Chris
>
> Frank has suggested, and I agree, it would be a good idea to hold a
> meeting to finalise the field development research design. He has
> suggesed Mon 4th or 11th August. What do you think? I don't know
> what Michael's diary is like so this is only tentative at the
> moment.
What do other people think about keeping a meeting for after the 15th
versus before? It's a lot of our personpower all concentrated in one
meeting if we meet before and the 11th would leave very little time to
assimilate the results into the submission. The 4th is possible for
me, the 11th possible but will involve cancelling things.
I think it's a good idea to meet as I think we get things,
particularly practicalities, thrashed out very efficiently when we
meet like this. However, I suggest that we don't do it before
the deadline of the 15th. I think we need our energies for digesting
what we've got. If we've launched one site to feel our way before
then, that would be grand but I feel that if we could identify a
friendly site and start there very tentatively without such a full
meeting. Maybe I'm misreading the priorities or the nature of the
submission.
>
> I have arranged a provisional meeting with the Huddersfield site
> for 21st August at their 'adult' departmental meeting. Seven of the
> sites I contacted would like to continue their collaboration, and,
> obviously, want details of what it will entail asap. The biggest
> issue is what supplementary information we collect with the
> measures; whether we go down the line of John's protocol.
> So far as I'm concerned, the simpler the better (maybe not John's,
> we are not evaluating the service, just the measure, at this stage,
> are we not?). I feel it needs to be clarified between us _
> exactly_ what we are aiming to achieve and keeping stricly within
> those parameters.
I agree and it's good to hear that there are sites keen to go (I was
at a meeting last night and think we have another 6-15 sites in
London who want to go).
>
>
> Frank has been in touch and I am sending him 100 non-clinical forms.
> He does not promise to get all these done, but will try between
> them. They are going to concentrate on this rather than the clinical
> sample.
Fine.
>
> For the clinical trials (my pilot 1, your 'scraping up data'!!!), I
> have 8 sites collecting. I agree, it would be a good idea to keep
> tabs on how many they have collected and bring in early if poss..
> That's not a problem. I do know that Newcastle have completed at
> least 50 as they rang and asked for some more! I will ring the
> others in the order I sent out the forms when I feel they have had
> enough time to have a good go at it.
Yes, that's what Michael was suggesting. Great.
Chris
Chris Evans, Senior Lecturer in Psychotherapy,
Locum Consultant to the
Prudence Skynner Family Therapy Clinic,
St. George's Hospital Medical School, London University
C.Evans@sghms.ac.uk http://psyctc.sghms.ac.uk/
=============== M.H.F. Core Battery Study ==============================
This message was redistributed by the MHF study list:
mhf_study@psyctc.sghms.ac.uk
If you have technical problems with this message or the list, reply to:
Chris Evans <C.Evans@sghms.ac.uk>
The list is archived for WWW browsing at:
http://psyctc.sghms.ac.uk/mhf_study/list/index.htm
User name: Core_Battery Password: Duracell (both case sensitive)