Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30474075›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2018

The association between method of solicitation and patient permissions for use of surplus tissues and contact for future research.

Azza Shoaibi, Jihad S Obeid, Jim C Oates, Melissa L Habrat, Leslie A Lenert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Azza ShoaibiBiomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Jihad S ObeidBiomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7193-7779
Jim C OatesDepartment of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Melissa L HabratBiomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Leslie A LenertBiomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Medical University of South Carolina · US

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
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 TR001450NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR029882NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072582
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveObtaining patient permissions for research contact and for surplus tissue use as part of routine clinical practice can improve research participation. This study aims to investigate the difference in patient permissions for use of surplus tissues, and for direct contact for research, using 2 different methods of solicitation.

methodsAn opt-in, population-based approach for gathering research permissions was implemented in 2 methods. The first method, applied a 2-item patient questionnaire delivered through the electronic health record patient portal. The questionnaire composed of 2 questions (1) whether de-identified surplus specimens may be used for research and (2) whether patients could be contacted about research. In the second method, the same questionnaire was physically presented in clinic within the clinical workflow. We used 1 to 1 propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regression to estimate the odds of obtaining permission and the difference between the 2 methods of solicitation.

resultsThe propensity score model matched 8044 observations (4114 submissions in each group). Among the in-clinic submission group, 70.13% provided permission for surplus tissue compared with 66.65% in the patient portal submission group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.32; DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that in-clinic solicitation of patient permissions may provide the same opportunity to patients who do not use patient portals and may be associated with higher permission rate for surplus tissue. However, this was primary true for European American and African Americans patients. Patients of other race minorities might respond better to online approaches.

conclusionAdopting a patient-centric approach that combines in-clinic and portal-based administration may be feasible and promising. Further research is required in this area.

Indexed as

biobank studiespatients portalspermission to contactpermission to contact platformpermission to surplus tissue useresearch voluntarism

Identifiers

PMID30474075
PMCPMC6241503
OpenAlexW2894071522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.