Researcher (postdoc) Nursing Care and Elderly Care
Publicatie
Publication date
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.
Man, Y. de, Wieland-Jorna, Y., Torensma, B., Wit, K. de, Francke, A.L., Oosterveld-Vlug, M.G., Verheij, R.A. 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. Journal of Medical Internet Research: 2023, 25, p. Art. nr. e42131.
Read online
Background
Scientific 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.
Objective
This 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.
Methods
A 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.
Results
A 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.
Conclusions
Consent 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.
Scientific 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.
Objective
This 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.
Methods
A 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.
Results
A 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.
Conclusions
Consent 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.
Background
Scientific 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.
Objective
This 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.
Methods
A 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.
Results
A 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.
Conclusions
Consent 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.
Scientific 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.
Objective
This 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.
Methods
A 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.
Results
A 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.
Conclusions
Consent 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.
