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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach
Authors: Hester J T Ward; Simon N Cousens; Blaire Smith-Bathgate; Margaret Leitch; Dawn Everington; Robert G Will; Peter G Smith Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-07-31
Authors: Philip James Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike J Clarke; Carolyn Diguiseppi; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan; Rachel Cooper; Lambert M Felix; Sarah Pratap Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: D M Roden; J M Pulley; M A Basford; G R Bernard; E W Clayton; J R Balser; D R Masys Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: E Vermeulen; M K Schmidt; N K Aaronson; M Kuenen; M-J Baas-Vrancken Peeters; H van der Poel; S Horenblas; H Boot; V J Verwaal; A Cats; F E van Leeuwen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Claire S Leathem; Margaret E Cupples; Mary C Byrne; Mary O'Malley; Ailish Houlihan; Andrew W Murphy; Susan M Smith Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2009-06-19 Impact factor: 4.615