Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41020223›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Health disparities and selection bias in obtaining broad consent in a general practitioner setting.

Christine Brütting, Konstantin Moser, Marcus Heise, Felix Bauch, Thomas Frese

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Christine BrüttingInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Center of Health Sciences, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Konstantin MoserInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Center of Health Sciences, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Marcus HeiseInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Center of Health Sciences, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Felix BauchInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Center of Health Sciences, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Thomas FreseInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Center of Health Sciences, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: For research with electronic health records in the outpatient setting, obtaining Broad Consent (BC) is increasingly important. However, the presence of potential selection bias in this context remains unclear. Since 2020, the BeoNet-Halle outpatient database collects patient data from participating general and specialty ambulatory practices' management systems in Germany, whereby data is obtained anonymously or pseudonymously Methods: This is a single-center, cross-sectional study. From February 2021 to May 2023, patients were asked by a general practitioner or a specially trained member of the joint practice to provide BC. Within the yearly contact group of 2022, we compared patients who provided BC with the reference population (RP) of patients with at least one physician-patient contact during that period in a joint practice including eight eneral ractitioners. Data pertaining to health, morbidity, and health utilization were extracted from the BeoNet-Halle database. Results: A total of 5,034 patients were analyzed (BC-group: 439 vs. RP group: 4,595). Sex was similar distributed between the groups. In the BC group, patients were slightly older (56.2 vs. 54.1 years), had more physician contacts (15.0 vs. 9.2) and more often at least one chronic condition (76.1 vs. 51.6%) than patients from RP group. Patients were more likely to be referred to at least one other specialist (74.0 vs. 44.4%) and to get at least one drug prescription (89.5 vs. 69.6%). Conclusion: Differences between BC and the reference population (older age, higher multimorbidity, more contacts, referrals, and drug use) indicate selection processes at the point of consent. Given the single-practice design and descriptive analysis, generalizability beyond similar German group practices is limited and requires validation in multi-site studies.

Indexed as

BeoNet-Hallebroad consentgeneral practicehealth and morbidity-related differencesinformed consent

Identifiers

PMID41020223
PMCPMC12460337

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.