Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36853745›Full record

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.

Yvonne de Man, Yvonne Wieland-Jorna, Bart Torensma, Koos de Wit, Anneke L Francke, Mariska G Oosterveld-Vlug, Robert A Verheij

Open access · goldFull text readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Yvonne de Man *Nivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1270-9394
Yvonne Wieland-Jorna *Nivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0524-8182
Bart TorensmaLeiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0274-9608
Koos de WitDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8472-8549
Anneke L FranckeNivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7953-0693
Mariska G Oosterveld-VlugNivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3911-1536
Robert A VerheijNivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2234-4819
Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLTilburg University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

IncomeInformed ConsentBiasEducational StatusFemaleHumansMalePubMedconsent biasconsent rateconsent resentativenesselectronic health recordsopt-inopt-outprocedurereal-world datarepresentativenessroutine health datasecondary data use

Identifiers

PMID36853745
PMCPMC10015347
OpenAlexW4322616538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read141
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.