Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38547214›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

From opt-out to opt-in consent for secondary use of medical data and residual biomaterial: An evaluation using the RE-AIM framework.

Jennifer E Lutomski, Peggy Manders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Jennifer E LutomskiRadboud Biobank, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1963-5749
Peggy MandersRadboud Biobank, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient records, imaging, and residual biomaterial from clinical procedures are crucial resources for medical research. In the Netherlands, consent for secondary research has historically relied on opt-out consent. For ethical-legal experts who purport passive consent undermines patient autonomy, opt-in consent (wherein affirmative action is required) is seen as the preferred standard. To date, there is little empirical research exploring patient feasibility, organizational consequences, and the potential risks for research based on secondary data. Thus, we applied the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the impact of migrating from an opt-out to an opt-in consent process.

methodsThis evaluation was carried out in Radboud University Medical Center, a large tertiary hospital located in the southeast of the Netherlands. All non-acute, mentally competent patients ≥16 years of age registered between January 13, 2020 and June 30, 2023 were targeted (N = 101,437). In line with the RE-AIM framework, individual and organizational consequences were evaluated across five domains: reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance.

results101,437 eligible patients were approached of whom 66,214 (65.3%) consented, 8,059 (7.9%) refused consent and 27,164 (26.8%) had no response. Of the 74,273 patients with a response, 89.1% consented to secondary use. The migration to an opt-in consent system was modestly successful; yet notably, differential response patterns by key sociodemographic characteristics were observed. Adaptions to the process flow improved its effectiveness and resulted in a reasonable response over time. Implementation was most affected by budgetary restraints, thus impeding the iterative approach which could have further improved domain outcomes.

conclusionThis evaluation provides an overview of logistical and pragmatic issues encountered when migrating from opt-out to opt-in consent. Response bias remains a major concern. Though not always directly transferable, these lessons can be broadly used to inform other health care organizations of the potential advantages and pitfalls of an opt-in consent system.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEmpirical ResearchHumansInformed ConsentNetherlandsQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID38547214
PMCPMC10977758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.