Literature DB >> 16223793

Bias from requiring explicit consent from all participants in observational research: prospective, population based study.

Rustam Al-Shahi1, Céline Vousden, Charles Warlow.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the differences between adults who consent to participate in observational research, and those who do not.
DESIGN: Prospective, population based cohort study.
SETTING: Primary and secondary care throughout Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 187 adults (aged > or = 16 years) resident in Scotland at the time of their first diagnosis of a brain arteriovenous malformation in 1999-2002. INTERVENTION: Postal consent form sent via participants' general practitioner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences between consenters and non-consenters in demographic and clinical features at first presentation, and outcome during follow-up.
RESULTS: 111 adults (59%) consented to participate in the study. These consenters were not significantly different from non-consenters in age, sex, or socioeconomic status at first presentation. However, consenters were significantly more likely than non-consenters to present alive and independent, and with a seizure. During follow-up, consenters were significantly more likely to receive interventional treatment. Although consenters' survival was significantly better, they were more likely to have a seizure during follow-up. Presentation with intracranial haemorrhage conferred a higher risk of subsequent haemorrhage when the whole cohort was analysed, but not when it was restricted to consenters.
CONCLUSIONS: We have found differences between adults who consent to participate in observational records-based research and those who do not, or cannot, consent. Blanket requirements for explicit consent for the use of individuals' identifiable data can bias disease registers, epidemiological studies, and health services research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16223793      PMCID: PMC1261192          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38624.397569.68

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  7 in total

1.  Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit.

Authors:  R Al-Shahi; C Warlow
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-10-28

2.  Protecting patient privacy: striking a balance.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-08-25       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research.

Authors:  S J Jacobsen; Z Xia; M E Campion; C H Darby; M F Plevak; K D Seltman; L J Melton
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 7.616

4.  The threat to medical-records research.

Authors:  L J Melton
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-11-13       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Scottish Intracranial Vascular Malformation Study (SIVMS): evaluation of methods, ICD-10 coding, and potential sources of bias in a prospective, population-based cohort.

Authors:  Rustam Al-Shahi; Jo J Bhattacharya; David G Currie; Vakis Papanastassiou; Vaughn Ritchie; Richard C Roberts; Robin J Sellar; Charles P Warlow
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2003-04-17       Impact factor: 7.914

Review 6.  A systematic review of the frequency and prognosis of arteriovenous malformations of the brain in adults.

Authors:  R Al-Shahi; C Warlow
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 13.501

7.  Impracticability of informed consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network.

Authors:  Jack V Tu; Donald J Willison; Frank L Silver; Jiming Fang; Janice A Richards; Andreas Laupacis; Moira K Kapral
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 91.245

  7 in total
  31 in total

1.  Coordination and management of multicenter clinical studies in trauma: Experience from the PRospective Observational Multicenter Major Trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) Study.

Authors:  Mohammad H Rahbar; Erin E Fox; Deborah J del Junco; Bryan A Cotton; Jeanette M Podbielski; Nena Matijevic; Mitchell J Cohen; Martin A Schreiber; Jiajie Zhang; Parsa Mirhaji; Sarah J Duran; Robert J Reynolds; Ruby Benjamin-Garner; John B Holcomb
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 5.262

2.  Consent bias in research: how to avoid it.

Authors:  Cornelia Junghans; Melvyn Jones
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 5.994

3.  Evaluating predictors of geographic area population size cut-offs to manage re-identification risk.

Authors:  Khaled El Emam; Ann Brown; Philip AbdelMalik
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Bypassing bureaucracy to answer important questions quickly.

Authors:  Jonathan Emery-Barker; Iain McClure; Alison Wood; Rachel Robertson; Helen Minnis
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 5.  Biobanking residual tissues.

Authors:  Peter H J Riegman; Evert-Ben van Veen
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2011-08-04       Impact factor: 4.132

6.  Investigating Respondents and Nonrespondents of a Postal Breast Cancer Questionnaire Survey Regarding Differences in Age, Medical Conditions, and Therapy.

Authors:  Anna L Frobeen; Christoph Kowalski; Verena Weiß; Holger Pfaff
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 2.860

7.  Selection bias in a study of implantable defibrillator patients: the role of Type D personality.

Authors:  Krista C van den Broek; Ivan Nyklíček; Johan Denollet
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2011-03

8.  Assessing the impact of the requirement for explicit consent in a hospital-based stroke study.

Authors:  C Jackson; L Crossland; M Dennis; J Wardlaw; C Sudlow
Journal:  QJM       Date:  2008-02-15

9.  Waiver of consent in noninterventional, observational emergency research: the PROMMTT experience.

Authors:  Erin E Fox; Eileen M Bulger; Aisha S Dickerson; Deborah J del Junco; Patricia Klotz; Jeanette Podbielski; Nena Matijevic; Karen J Brasel; John B Holcomb; Martin A Schreiber; Bryan A Cotton; Herb A Phelan; Mitchell J Cohen; John G Myers; Louis H Alarcon; Peter Muskat; Charles E Wade; Mohammad H Rahbar
Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.313

10.  Vasectomy and the risk of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  Xiao-Long Zhang; Jia-Jun Yan; Shou-Hua Pan; Jian-Gang Pan; Xiang-Rong Ying; Guan-Fu Zhang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-10-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.