Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28441388›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

A population-based approach for implementing change from opt-out to opt-in research permissions.

Elizabeth A Marshall, Jim C Oates, Azza Shoaibi, Jihad S Obeid, Melissa L Habrat, Robert W Warren, Kathleen T Brady, Leslie A Lenert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Ethics of Consent in a Shifting Genomic Ecosystem.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2021
    Review
  6. Public attitudes toward an authorization for contact program for clinical research.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

8 authors.

Elizabeth A MarshallBiomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8741-2723
Jim C OatesDepartment of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States of America.
Azza ShoaibiBiomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States of America.
Jihad S ObeidDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States of America.
Melissa L HabratBiomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States of America.
Robert W WarrenDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Rheumatology and Immunology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States of America.
Kathleen T BradyDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States of America.
Leslie A LenertBiomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

Using social networks to map and evaluate team science across CTSA hubsUL1TR001427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI MITCHELL, DUANE A. · 2015 to 2024
$37.2M
SOUTH CAROLINA CLINICAL & TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (SCTR)UL1RR029882 · NCRR · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T. · 2009 to 2011
$10.1M
Resource CoreP30AR072582 · NIAMS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI JAMES C OATES · 2017 to 2026
$8.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001427NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR029882NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072582
6 · The paper itself

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

AdolescentAdultAgedBiological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28441388
PMCPMC5404843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.