SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2023
Opt-In and Opt-Out Consent Procedures for the Reuse of Routinely Recorded Health Data in Scientific Research and Their Consequences for Consent Rate and Consent Bias: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring perspectives of interest-holders on the use of health and genomic data from deceased participants in research: An updated systematic review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Pooled it
- Recruiting and Consenting Decentralized Clinical Trial Participants-Learnings from the Trials@Home RADIAL Proof-of-Concept Trial.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Trial
- LLM research on public biosignals data is needed to protect patients.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- Exploring patient motivations and preferences for medical data sharing with researchers: a simulation study using the iAgree platform.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical artificial intelligence applications of vision-language foundation models.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
- Exploring Technological Solutions for Interoperability Between Patient Electronic Medical Records and Clinical Registries: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Implementing broad consent for research with routinely collected clinical data and residual biosamples in a cancer hospital: using mixed methods approach to evaluate consent rates and patients' perspectives.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Commercial or industrial use of mental health data for research: primer and best-practice guidelines from the DATAMIND patient/public Lived Experience Advisory Group.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- A maturity model framework for federated networks of trusted research environments.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- A user-driven consent platform for health data sharing in digital health applications.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Medical machine learning operations: a framework to facilitate clinical AI development and deployment in radiology.European radiology · 2025Review
- Worldwide willingness to share health data high but privacy, consent and transparency paramount, a meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Determinants of consent for electronic health information exchange: an observational retrospective study.Health research policy and systems · 2025Observational
- Article
- Enhancing Text Message Support With Media Literacy and Financial Incentives for Vaping Cessation in Young Adults: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Behind the data: Reflections from conducting school-based suicide prevention research with young people in the United Kingdom.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- Five-Year Implementation of Zero Suicide: Lessons Learnt From an Academic Health System.Psychiatric research and clinical practice · 2025Article
- Consent mechanisms and default effects in health information exchange in Japan.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Ethical data acquisition for LLMs and AI algorithms in healthcare.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScientific researchers who wish to reuse health data pertaining to individuals can obtain consent through an opt-in procedure or opt-out procedure. The choice of procedure may have consequences for the consent rate and representativeness of the study sample and the quality of the research, but these consequences are not well known.
objectiveThis review aimed to provide insight into the consequences for the consent rate and consent bias of the study sample of opt-in procedures versus opt-out procedures for the reuse of routinely recorded health data for scientific research purposes.
methodsA systematic review was performed based on searches in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently included studies based on predefined eligibility criteria and assessed whether the statistical methods used in the reviewed literature were appropriate for describing the differences between consenters and nonconsenters. Statistical pooling was conducted, and a description of the results was provided.
resultsA total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Of the 15 studies, 13 (87%) implemented an opt-in procedure, 1 (7%) implemented an opt-out procedure, and 1 (7%) implemented both the procedures. The average weighted consent rate was 84% (60,800/72,418 among the studies that used an opt-in procedure and 96.8% (2384/2463) in the single study that used an opt-out procedure. In the single study that described both procedures, the consent rate was 21% in the opt-in group and 95.6% in the opt-out group. Opt-in procedures resulted in more consent bias compared with opt-out procedures. In studies with an opt-in procedure, consenting individuals were more likely to be males, had a higher level of education, higher income, and higher socioeconomic status.
conclusionsConsent rates are generally lower when using an opt-in procedure compared with using an opt-out procedure. Furthermore, in studies with an opt-in procedure, participants are less representative of the study population. However, both the study populations and the way in which opt-in or opt-out procedures were organized varied widely between the studies, which makes it difficult to draw general conclusions regarding the desired balance between patient control over data and learning from health data. The reuse of routinely recorded health data for scientific research purposes may be hampered by administrative burdens and the risk of bias.
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.