ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021
Opt-in or opt-out health-care communication? A cross-sectional study.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consent mechanisms and default effects in health information exchange in Japan.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Opt-in or opt-out health-care communication? A cross-sectional study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients need medication and medical condition-related information to better self-manage their health. Health-care professionals (HCPs) should be able to actively provide information outside of one-on-one consultations; however, patient consent may be required.
objectiveTo investigate the Australian public's preferences, and factors that may influence their preferences, towards an opt-in versus an opt-out approach to health communication.
designA cross-sectional study using a structured questionnaire administered via Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing. SETTING AND
participantsParticipants across Australia who were adults, English-speaking and had a long-term medical condition.
main outcome measuresPreferences for opt-in vs opt-out approach to receiving follow-up tailored information.
resultsA total of 8683 calls were made to achieve the required sample size of 589 completed surveys. Many (346/589; 58.7%) indicated that they were interested in receiving tailored, ongoing follow-up information from their HCP. Nearly half (n = 281; 47.7%) preferred an opt-in service and 293/589 (49.7%) an opt-out service for receiving follow-up information. Reasons for preferring an opt-in service were being in control of the information received (n = 254); able to make a decision that is best for them (n = 245); opt-in service would save time for HCPs (n = 217); they may not want or need the information (n = 240). Many (n = 255) felt that an opt-out service should be part of the normal duty of care of their HCP and believed (n = 267) that this approach would ensure that everyone has access to information.
conclusionsRespondents were interested in receiving tailored information outside of consultation times. However, preferences for an opt-in or opt-out approach were divided.
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.