Recruiting Patients to Medical Research: Double Blind Randomised Trial of "Opt-In" Versus "Opt-Out" Strategies
Keywords
EthicsEthics Committees
Medical Research
Patients
Research
Risk
Human Experimentation Policy Guidelines / Institutional Review Boards
Informed Consent or Human Experimentation
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Recruiting+patients+to+medical+research:+double+blind+randomised+trial+of+"opt-in"+versus+"opt-out"+strategies&title=BMJ:+British+Medical+Journal+&volume=331&issue=7522&date=2005-10&au=Junghans,+Cornelia;+Feder,+Gene;+Hemingway,+Harry;+Timmis,+Adam;+Jones,+Melvynhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38583.625613.AE
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/978294
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of opt-in compared with opt- out recruitment strategies on response rate and selection bias. DESIGN: Double blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: 510 patients with angina. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly allocated to an opt-in (asked to actively signal willingness to participate in research) or opt-out (contacted repeatedly unless they signalled unwillingness to participate) approach for recruitment to an observational prognostic study of patients with angina. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recruitment rate and clinical characteristics of patients. RESULTS: The recruitment rate, defined by clinic attendance, was 38% (96/252) in the opt-in arm and 50% (128/258) in the opt-out arm (P = 0.014). Once an appointment had been made, non-attendance at the clinic was similar (20% opt-in arm v 17% opt- out arm; P = 0.86). Patients in the opt-in arm had fewer risk factors (44% v 60%; P = 0.053), less treatment for angina (69% v 82%; P = 0.010), and less functional impairment (9% v 20%; P = 0.023) than patients in the opt-out arm. CONCLUSIONS: The opt-in approach to participant recruitment, increasingly required by ethics committees, resulted in lower response rates and a biased sample. We propose that the opt-out approach should be the default recruitment strategy for studies with low risk to participants.Date
2016-01-08Identifier
oai:repository.library.georgetown.edu:10822/978294doi:10.1136/bmj.38583.625613.AE
BMJ: British Medical Journal 2005 October 22; 331(7522): 940- 942
http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Recruiting+patients+to+medical+research:+double+blind+randomised+trial+of+"opt-in"+versus+"opt-out"+strategies&title=BMJ:+British+Medical+Journal+&volume=331&issue=7522&date=2005-10&au=Junghans,+Cornelia;+Feder,+Gene;+Hemingway,+Harry;+Timmis,+Adam;+Jones,+Melvyn
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38583.625613.AE
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/978294
DOI
10.1136/bmj.38583.625613.AEae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1136/bmj.38583.625613.AE