Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28410585›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017

Practical application of opt-out recruitment methods in two health services research studies.

Christopher J Miller, James F Burgess, Ellen P Fischer, Deborah J Hodges, Lindsay K Belanger, Jessica M Lipschitz, Siena R Easley, Christopher J Koenig, Regina L Stanley, Jeffrey M Pyne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026
    Article
  4. Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Veteran Perspectives on Care Coordination Between Veterans Affairs and Community Providers: A Qualitative Analysis.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Christopher J MillerVA Boston Healthcare System Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research and Harvard Medical School Department of Psychiatry, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Christopher.Miller8@va.gov.
James F BurgessVA Boston Healthcare System Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research and Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ellen P FischerCenter for Mental Healthcare & Outcomes Research, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, and University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Department of Psychiatry, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
Deborah J HodgesCentral Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System and University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
Lindsay K BelangerVA Boston Healthcare System Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research and Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jessica M LipschitzVA Boston Healthcare System Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research and Harvard Medical School Department of Psychiatry, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Siena R EasleyVA Boston Healthcare System Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research and Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Christopher J KoenigSan Francisco VA Health Care System and San Francisco State University Department of Communication Studies, San Francisco, California, USA.
Regina L StanleyCentral Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
Jeffrey M PyneCentral Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System and University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Department of Psychiatry, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.

Funding

HSRD VA CRE 12-300HSRD VA I01 HX001114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipant recruitment is an ongoing challenge in health research. Recruitment may be especially difficult for studies of access to health care because, even among those who are in care, people using services least often also may be hardest to contact and recruit. Opt-out recruitment methods (in which potential participants are given the opportunity to decline further contact about the study (opt out) following an initial mailing, and are then contacted directly if they have not opted out within a specified period) can be used for such studies. However, there is a dearth of literature on the effort needed for effective opt-out recruitment.

methodsIn this paper we describe opt-out recruitment procedures for two studies on access to health care within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. We report resource requirements for recruitment efforts (number of opt-out packets mailed and number of phone calls made). We also compare the characteristics of study participants to potential participants via t-tests, Fisher's exact tests, and chi-squared tests.

resultsRecruitment rates for our two studies were 12 and 21%, respectively. Across multiple study sites, we had to send between 4.3 and 9.2 opt-out packets to recruit one participant. The number of phone calls required to arrive at a final status for each potentially eligible Veteran (i.e. study participation or the termination of recruitment efforts) were 2.9 and 6.1 in the two studies, respectively. Study participants differed as expected from the population of potentially eligible Veterans based on planned oversampling of certain subpopulations. The final samples of participants did not differ statistically from those who were mailed opt-out packets, with one exception: in one of our two studies, participants had higher rates of mental health service use in the past year than did those mailed opt-out packets (64 vs. 47%).

conclusionsOur results emphasize the practicality of using opt-out methods for studies of access to health care. Despite the benefits of these methods, opt-out alone may be insufficient to eliminate non-response bias on key variables. Researchers will need to balance considerations of sample representativeness and feasibility when designing studies investigating access to care.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchPatient SelectionAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedVeteransYoung AdultAccessHealth servicesOpt-outRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID28410585
PMCPMC5391553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.