ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
Bias in obtaining broad consent in a German general practice? - Preliminary results from a cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2024. 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.
- Robot-Assisted Broad Consent Collection: Initial Experience in Practice.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Article
- Health disparities and selection bias in obtaining broad consent in a general practitioner setting.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The growing importance of collecting Broad Consent (BC) for research utilizing electronic health records in Germany has brought attention to the need for a deeper understanding of potential selection bias in the process. Since 2020, the BeoNet-Halle outpatient database has been collecting anonymous and pseudonymous patient data from primary care and specialty practices throughout Germany, with the practice being an integral part of this data collection effort. The primary objective of the pilot study is to explore potential socioeconomic discrepancies between patients who provided BC and the general practice population. Method: This is a single-center, cross-sectional study. The study was performed with patients from one Medical Care Center including eight GPs. We categorized patients with at least one interaction with a general practitioner from March 2021 to January 2023 into two sets: patients who approved BC versus a randomly chosen representative sample (RS) of non-BC inquirers. We mailed a sociodemographic survey to both groups. Results: A total of 561 patients were analyzed, with the BC group responding more actively (60.7%) than the RS group (29.7%). Age and gender were similar between the BC group and RS group. Being widowed, divorced, or unmarried and being neither open nor hostile toward research was associated with an increased likelihood of giving consent. Analysis of personality traits did not show any impact on giving consent. Conclusions: Overall, this study outlines that there is some bias between BC and RS. Possible associations in BC decisions that offer insights into complex decisions to participate in medical research are marital status, immigrant background, income, and age. Findings emphasize the potential of BC for outpatient research, warranting further investigation to optimize its application in the general practice setting.
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.