Do patient consent procedures affect participation rates in health services research?

Medical Care

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 283-288

  Nelson, Karin ^a,b,d   Garcia, Rosa Elena ^b   Brown, Julie ^b   Mangione, Carol M ^b,c   Louis, Thomas A ^b   Keeler, Emmett ^b   Cretin, Shan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d Puget Sound Health Care System   (United States)

Author keywords

Health services research; Participation rates; Response rates; Subject recruitment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE; DIABETES MELLITUS; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

DIABETES MELLITUS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HEART FAILURE, CONGESTIVE; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036549591     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200204000-00004     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Cann CI, Rothman KJ. IRBs and epidemiologic research: how inappropriate restrictions hamper studies. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1984(July/ August):5-7.
2. Goldman J, Katz MD. Inconsistency and institutional review boards. JAMA 1482;248:197-202.
3. Berry SH, Perlman JF, Nederend S. Variations in Institutional Review Boards (IRB) response to requests for approval to implement the HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study (HCSUS) at a probability sample of HIV provider sites. Abstract, Association for Health Serv Res, Washington DC, June 1998.
4. Kavanagh C, Matthews D, Sorenson JR, et al. Multi-institutional review of a genetic counseling study. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research. 1979;1:1-3, 12.
5. Lynn J, Johnson J, Levine RJ. The ethical conduct of health services research: a case study of 55 institutions' applications to the SUPPORT project. Clin Res 1994;42:3-10.
6. Goldberg HI. Ethical issues in administrative continuous improvement. Applying the concept of prior notification to the conduct of firm trials. Med Care 1990;28:822-833.
7. McCarthy DB, Shatin D, Drinkard CR, et al. Medical records and privacy: empirical effects of legislation. Health Serv Res 1999;34(1 Pt 2):417-424.
8. Yawn BP, Yawn RA, Geier R, et al. The impact of requiring patient authorization for use of data in medical records research. J Fam Pract 1998;47:361-365.
9. Wagner EH, Glasgow RE, Davis C, et al. Quality improvement in chronic illness care: a collaborative approach. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2001;27:63-80.
10. Berwick DM. Developing and testing changes in delivery of care. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:651-656.
11. Keeler E. Improving Chronic Illness Care Evaluation. Conducted By RAND Health, funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Available at: http:// www.rand.org/health/ICICE.
12. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Calculating Outcome Rates from Final Disposition Distributions. Standard Definitions. Downloaded from www.aapor.org/ethics/stddef.htlm on 5/23/01.
13. Singer E. More on the limits of consent forms. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research March 1980:7.
14. Woolf SH, Rothemich SF, Johnson RE, et al. Selection bias from requiring patients to give consent to examine data for health services research. Arch Fam Med 2000;9:1111-1118.
15. Melton LJ. The threat to medical records research. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1466-1470.
16. Gostin LO. National health information privacy. Regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. JAMA 2001;285:3015-3021.
17. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-191.
18. Appelbaum PS. Threats to the confidentiality of medical records - no place to hide. JAMA. 2000;283:795-797.