Selection Bias From Requiring Patients to Give Consent to Examine Data for Health Services Research
Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH;
Stephen F. Rothemich, MD;
Robert E. Johnson, PhD;
David W. Marsland, MD
Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:1111-1118.
Background New rulings nationwide require health services researchers to obtain patient consent before examining personally identifiable data. A selection bias may result if consenting patients differ from those who do not give consent.
Objective To compare patients who consent, refuse, and do not answer.
Design Patients completing an in-office survey were asked for permission to be surveyed at home and for their records to be reviewed. Survey responses and practice billing data were used to compare patients by consent status.
Setting Urban family practice center.
Patients Of 2046 eligible patients, 1106 were randomly selected for the survey, were approached by staff, and agreed to participate. Approximately 87% of the nonparticipants were eliminated through a randomization process.
Main Outcome Measure Consent status.
Results A total of 33% of patients did not give consent: 25% actively refused, and 8% did not answer. Consenting patients were older, included fewer women and African Americans, and reported poorer physical function than those who did not give consent (P<.05). Patients who did not answer the question were older, included more women and African Americans, and were less educated than those who answered (P<.02). Visits for certain reasons (eg, pelvic infections) were associated with lower consent rates. On multivariate analysis, older age, male sex, and lower functional status were significant predictors of consent.
Conclusions Patients who release personal information for health services research differ in important characteristics from those who do not. In this study, older patients and those in poorer health were more likely to grant consent. Quality and health services research restricted to patients who give consent may misrepresent outcomes for the general population.
From the Department of Family Practice, Virginia Commonwealth University (Drs Woolf, Rothemich, and Marsland), and the Department of Mathematical Sciences (Dr Johnson), Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. Dr Johnson is now with the Department of Biostatistics.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
The effect of privacy legislation on observational research
Gershon and Tu
CMAJ 2008;178:871-873.
FULL TEXT
Extracting information from hospital records: what patients think about consent
Campbell et al.
Qual Saf Health Care 2007;16:404-408.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impact of privacy legislation on the number and characteristics of people who are recruited for research: a randomised controlled trial.
Trevena et al.
J. Med. Ethics 2006;32:473-477.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Mother's consent to linkage of survey data with her child's birth records in a multi-ethnic national cohort study
Tate et al.
Int J Epidemiol 2006;35:294-298.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies
Junghans et al.
BMJ 2005;331:940.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cluster Randomized Trials of Professional and Organizational Behavior Change Interventions in Health Care Settings
Grimshaw et al.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2005;599:71-93.
ABSTRACT
Practice-Based Research Network Studies in the Age of HIPAA
Pace et al.
Ann Fam Med 2005;3:S38-S45.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Patterns of Consent in Epidemiologic Research: Evidence from Over 25,000 Responders
Dunn et al.
Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:1087-1094.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impracticability of Informed Consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network
Tu et al.
NEJM 2004;350:1414-1421.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The privacy paradox: laying Orwell's ghost to rest
Upshur et al.
CMAJ 2001;165:307-309.
FULL TEXT
Protecting the Privacy of Family Members in Research
Levinson et al.
JAMA 2001;285:1960-1963.
FULL TEXT
|
