ArticlePloS one2017
A population-based approach for implementing change from opt-out to opt-in research permissions.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does an interactive trust-enhanced electronic consent improve patient experiences when asked to share their health records for research? A randomized trial.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Trial
- Leveraging oncology collaborative networks and biomedical informatics data resources to rapidly recruit and enroll rural residents into oncology quality of life clinical trials.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Count Me In: an inclusive approach towards patient recruitment for clinical research studies in the NHS.BMJ mental health · 2023Article
- Integrating patient voices into the extraction of social determinants of health from clinical notes: ethical considerations and recommendations.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- The Ethics of Consent in a Shifting Genomic Ecosystem.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2021Review
- Public attitudes toward an authorization for contact program for clinical research.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Each patient is a research biorepository: informatics-enabled research on surplus clinical specimens via the living BioBank.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Record linkage of population-based cohort data from minors with national register data: a scoping review and comparative legal analysis of four European countries.Open research Europe · 2021Article
- Recruiting for a pragmatic trial using the electronic health record and patient portal: successes and lessons learned.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Article
- Engaging patients throughout the health system: A landscape analysis of cold-call policies and recommendations for future policy change.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Review
- The association between method of solicitation and patient permissions for use of surplus tissues and contact for future research.JAMIA open · 2018Article
- Research participation preferences as expressed through a patient portal: implications of demographic characteristics.JAMIA open · 2018Article
- Patient preferences toward an interactive e-consent application for research using electronic health records.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Article
- Evaluation of 3 approaches for increasing patient engagement in clinical research: Feedback from a community engagement advisory board.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Due to recently proposed changes in the Common Rule regarding the collection of research preferences, there is an increased need for efficient methods to document opt-in research preferences at a population level. Previously, our institution developed an opt-out paper-based workflow that could not be utilized for research in a scalable fashion. This project was designed to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing an electronic health record (EHR)-based active opt-in research preferences program. The first phase of implementation required creating and disseminating a patient questionnaire through the EHR portal to populate discreet fields within the EHR indicating patients' preferences for future research study contact (contact) and their willingness to allow anonymised use of excess tissue and fluid specimens (biobank). In the second phase, the questionnaire was presented within a clinic nurse intake workflow in an obstetrical clinic. These permissions were tabulated in registries for use by investigators for feasibility studies and recruitment. The registry was also used for research patient contact management using a new EHR encounter type to differentiate research from clinical encounters. The research permissions questionnaire was sent to 59,670 patients via the EHR portal. Within four months, 21,814 responses (75% willing to participate in biobanking, and 72% willing to be contacted for future research) were received. Each response was recorded within a patient portal encounter to enable longitudinal analysis of responses. We obtained a significantly lower positive response from the 264 females who completed the questionnaire in the obstetrical clinic (55% volunteers for biobank and 52% for contact). We demonstrate that it is possible to establish a research permissions registry using the EHR portal and clinic-based workflows. This patient-centric, population-based, opt-in approach documents preferences in the EHR, allowing linkage of these preferences to health record information.
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.