12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Opt-out as an acceptable method of obtaining consent in medical research: a short report

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A prospective cohort study was set up to investigate a possible association between antibiotic prescribing and antibiotic resistance of E. coli urinary tract infection in the community. Participation of patients with urinary tract infection was obtained through an opt-out methodology. This short paper reports on the acceptability of the opt-out recruitment approach.

          Methods

          Participating practices (22) were requested to send a urine sample from all patients presenting with symptoms of urinary tract infection. Upon receipt of the sample in the laboratory, a letter explaining the study, an opt-out form and a freepost envelope were sent to all adult patients. A website with additional information and including an 'opt-out' button was set up for the study.

          Results

          A total of 1362 urine samples were submitted by the 22 participating practices representing 1178 adult patients of whom 193 actively responded to the letter: 142 opted out by letter, 15 through the website, 2 by phone and 12 sent the letter back without indication, making a total of 171 patients or 14.5% opt-out; the remaining 22 patients (1.9%) explicitly opted in. The total group consisted of 80% women and the mean age was 50.9 years (sd 20.8). No significant differences were found between patients who participated and those who opted out in terms of age, gender or whether the urine sample was positive or not.

          Conclusions

          Overall the opt-out method was well received and participation in the study reached 85.5%. The low number of complaints (2) indicates that this is a generally acceptable method of patient recruitment. The 14.5% opt-out shows that it effectively empowers patients to decline participation. The similarity between patients opting out and the rest of the patients is reassuring for extrapolation of the results of the study.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies.

          To evaluate the effect of opt-in compared with opt-out recruitment strategies on response rate and selection bias. Double blind randomised controlled trial. Two general practices in England. 510 patients with angina. 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. Recruitment rate and clinical characteristics of patients. 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. 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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Why we should not seek individual informed consent for participation in health services research.

            Ethics committees now require that individuals give informed consent to much health services research, in the same way as for clinical research. This is misguided. Existing ethical guidelines do not help us decide how to seek consent in these cases, and have allowed managerial experimentation to remain largely unchecked. Inappropriate requirements for individual consent can institutionalise health inequalities and reduce access to services for vulnerable groups. This undermines the fundamental purpose of the National Health Service (NHS), and ignores our rights and duties as its members, explored here. Alternative forms of community consent should be actively pursued.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Consent bias in research: how to avoid it.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central
                1471-2288
                2011
                6 April 2011
                : 11
                : 40
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Discipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, NUI Galway, Ireland
                [2 ]Discipline of Bacteriology, School of Medicine, NUI Galway, Ireland
                [3 ]Department of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
                [4 ]Department of Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
                Article
                1471-2288-11-40
                10.1186/1471-2288-11-40
                3079702
                21470399
                19b0b580-c9c1-454c-bf9d-8475f7fc6fa8
                Copyright ©2011 Vellinga et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 10 November 2010
                : 6 April 2011
                Categories
                Research Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article