BACKGROUND: Biobanks are an important resource for genetic and epidemiologic research, but bias may be introduced if those who accept the recruitment invitation differ systematically from those who do not in terms of attributes important to health-related investigations. To understand potential bias in a clinic-based biobank of biological samples, including genetic data linked to electronic health record information, we compared patient characteristics and self-reported information among participants, nonresponders and refusers. We also compared reasons for nonparticipation between refusers and nonresponders to elucidate potential pathways to reduce nonparticipation and any uncovered bias. METHODS: We mailed recruitment packets to 1,600 adult patients with upcoming appointments at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minn., USA) and recorded their participation status. Administrative data were used to compare characteristics across groups. We used phone interviews with 26 nonresponders and 26 refusers to collect self-reported information, including reasons for nonparticipation. Participants were asked to complete a mailed questionnaire. RESULTS: We achieved 26.2% participation (n=419) with 12.1% refusing (n=193) and 61.8% nonresponse (n=988). In multivariate analyses, sex, age, region of residence, and race/ethnicity were significantly associated with participation. The groups differed in information-seeking behaviors and research experience. Refusers more often cited privacy concerns, while nonresponders more often identified time constraints as the reason for nonparticipation. CONCLUSION: For genomic medicine to advance, large, representative biobanks are required. Significant associations between patient characteristics and nonresponse, as well as systematic differences between refusers and nonresponders, could introduce bias. Oversampling or recruitment changes, including heightened attention to privacy protection and participation burden, may be necessary to increase participation among less-represented groups.
BACKGROUND: Biobanks are an important resource for genetic and epidemiologic research, but bias may be introduced if those who accept the recruitment invitation differ systematically from those who do not in terms of attributes important to health-related investigations. To understand potential bias in a clinic-based biobank of biological samples, including genetic data linked to electronic health record information, we compared patient characteristics and self-reported information among participants, nonresponders and refusers. We also compared reasons for nonparticipation between refusers and nonresponders to elucidate potential pathways to reduce nonparticipation and any uncovered bias. METHODS: We mailed recruitment packets to 1,600 adult patients with upcoming appointments at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minn., USA) and recorded their participation status. Administrative data were used to compare characteristics across groups. We used phone interviews with 26 nonresponders and 26 refusers to collect self-reported information, including reasons for nonparticipation. Participants were asked to complete a mailed questionnaire. RESULTS: We achieved 26.2% participation (n=419) with 12.1% refusing (n=193) and 61.8% nonresponse (n=988). In multivariate analyses, sex, age, region of residence, and race/ethnicity were significantly associated with participation. The groups differed in information-seeking behaviors and research experience. Refusers more often cited privacy concerns, while nonresponders more often identified time constraints as the reason for nonparticipation. CONCLUSION: For genomic medicine to advance, large, representative biobanks are required. Significant associations between patient characteristics and nonresponse, as well as systematic differences between refusers and nonresponders, could introduce bias. Oversampling or recruitment changes, including heightened attention to privacy protection and participation burden, may be necessary to increase participation among less-represented groups.
Authors: L M Beskow; W Burke; J F Merz; P A Barr; S Terry; V B Penchaszadeh; L O Gostin; M Gwinn; M J Khoury Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-11-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Samantha A Streicher; Saskia C Sanderson; Ethylin Wang Jabs; Michael Diefenbach; Meg Smirnoff; Inga Peter; Carol R Horowitz; Barbara Brenner; Lynne D Richardson Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2011-06-07
Authors: Philippe A Melas; Louise K Sjöholm; Tord Forsner; Maigun Edhborg; Niklas Juth; Yvonne Forsell; Catharina Lavebratt Journal: J Med Ethics Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.903
Authors: Susan Brown Trinidad; Stephanie M Fullerton; Julie M Bares; Gail P Jarvik; Eric B Larson; Wylie Burke Journal: Genet Med Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: S Trent Rosenbloom; Jennifer L Madison; Kyle B Brothers; Erica A Bowton; Ellen Wright Clayton; Bradley A Malin; Dan M Roden; Jill Pulley Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Altovise T Ewing; Lori A H Erby; Juli Bollinger; Eva Tetteyfio; Luisel J Ricks-Santi; David Kaufman Journal: Biopreserv Biobank Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Sarah B Garrett; Barbara A Koenig; Arleen Brown; Jen R Hult; Elizabeth A Boyd; Sarah Dry; Daniel Dohan Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2015-01-10 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Matthew Hathcock; Cecilia Yee; Linda A Okoth; Charles M Ewing; William B Isaacs; Kathleen A Cooney; Stephen N Thibodeau Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-06-24 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Janet E Olson; Euijung Ryu; Kiley J Johnson; Barbara A Koenig; Karen J Maschke; Jody A Morrisette; Mark Liebow; Paul Y Takahashi; Zachary S Fredericksen; Ruchi G Sharma; Kari S Anderson; Matthew A Hathcock; Jason A Carnahan; Jyotishman Pathak; Noralane M Lindor; Timothy J Beebe; Stephen N Thibodeau; James R Cerhan Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Paul Y Takahashi; Euijung Ryu; Janet E Olson; Kari S Anderson; Matthew A Hathcock; Lindsey R Haas; James M Naessens; Jyotishman Pathak; Suzette J Bielinski; James R Cerhan Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Saskia C Sanderson; Michael A Diefenbach; Randi Zinberg; Carol R Horowitz; Margaret Smirnoff; Micol Zweig; Samantha Streicher; Ethylin Wang Jabs; Lynne D Richardson Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2013-06-22
Authors: Christian M Simon; Kai Wang; Laura A Shinkunas; Daniel T Stein; Paul Meissner; Maureen Smith; Rebecca Pentz; David W Klein Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 1.742