ArticleBMC research notes2012
Characteristics of Australian cohort study participants who do and do not take up an additional invitation to join a long-term biobank: The 45 and Up Study.
Article in BMC research notes, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of different invitation strategies on participation in a cohort study of Iranian public sector employees: a cluster randomized trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Trial
- The intensity of informal caregiving and its implications for older caregivers: a national survey in Sweden.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2026Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in the Employees' Health Cohort Study of Iran (EHCSIR): A Qualitative Content Analysis.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic, health-related, and clinical characteristics and their associations with mortality among All of Us participants compared with the United States general population.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Reweighting UK Biobank corrects for pervasive selection bias due to volunteering.International journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Pediatric biorepository participation during the COVID-19 pandemic: predictors of enrollment and biospecimen donation.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
- What motivates informal carers to be actively involved in research, and what obstacles to involvement do they perceive?Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Maternal occupational exposure and congenital heart defects in offspring.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2020Article
- Planning Today for Tomorrow's Research: Analysis of Factors Influencing Participation in a Pediatric Cancer Research Biorepository.Frontiers in oncology · 2017Article
- Survey nonresponse among informal caregivers: effects on the presence and magnitude of associations with caregiver burden and satisfaction.BMC public health · 2016Article
- Biobank attributes associated with higher patient participation: a randomized study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2016Article
- Oncology patients overwhelmingly support tissue banking.BMC cancer · 2015Article
- Representativeness of the LifeLines Cohort Study.PloS one · 2015Article
- Genetic research participation in a young adult community sample.Journal of community genetics · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge-scale population biobanks are critical for future research integrating epidemiology, genetic, biomarker and other factors. Little is known about the factors influencing participation in biobanks. This study compares the characteristics of biobank participants with those of non-participants, among members of an existing cohort study.
methodsIndividuals aged 45 and over participating in The 45 and Up Study and living ≤20km from central Wagga Wagga, New South Wales (NSW), Australia (rural/regional area) or ≤10km from central Parramatta, NSW (urban area) (n=2340) were invited to join a biobank, giving a blood sample and having additional measures taken, including height, weight, waist circumference, heart rate and blood pressure.
resultsThe overall uptake of the invitation to participate was 33% (762/2340). The response rate was 41% (410/1002) among participants resident in the regional area, and 26% (352/1338) among those resident in the urban area. Characteristics associated with significantly decreased participation were being aged 80 and over versus being aged 45-64 (participation rate ratio: RR = 0.45, 95%CI 0.34-0.60), not being born in Australia versus being born in Australia (0.69, 0.59-0.81), having versus not having a major disability (0.54, 0.38-0.76), having full-time caregiving responsibilities versus not being a full-time carer (0.62, 0.42-0.93) and being a current smoker versus never having smoked (0.66, 0.50-0.89). Factors associated with increased participation were being in part-time work versus not being in paid work (1.24, 1.07-1.44) and having an annual household income of ≥$50,000 versus <$20,000 (1.50, 1.26-1.80).
conclusionsA range of socio-economic, health and lifestyle factors are associated with biobank participation among members of an existing cohort study, with factors relating to health-seeking behaviours and access difficulties or time limitations being particularly important. If more widespread participation in biobanking is desired, particularly to ensure sufficient numbers among those most affected by these issues, specific efforts may be required to increase participation in certain groups such as migrants, the elderly, and those in poor health. Whilst caution should be exercised when generalising estimates of absolute prevalence from biobanks, estimates for many internal comparisons are likely to remain valid.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.