Randomized trial showed requesting medical records with a survey produced a more representative sample than requesting separately

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 61, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1028-1035

  Partin, Melissa R ^a,b   Burgess, Diana J ^a,b   Halek, Krysten ^a   Grill, Joseph ^a   Vernon, Sally W ^c   Fisher, Deborah A ^d   Griffin, Joan M ^a,b   Murdoch, Maureen ^a,b  

^a VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer screening; Colorectal cancer; Informed consent; Patient participation; Patient surveys; Randomized trial; Research methodology

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CAUCASIAN; COLORECTAL CANCER; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MARRIAGE; MEDICAL RECORD; POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF SELF REPORTED SCREENING; RANDOMIZATION; SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVENESS; SCREENING TEST; VALIDITY;

AGED; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MEDICAL RECORDS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; RESEARCH DESIGN; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; VETERANS;

EID: 50649096158     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.015     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Angus V.C., Entwistle V.A., Emslie M.J., Walker K.A., and Andrew J.E. The requirement for prior consent to participate on survey response rates: a population-based survey in Grampian. BMC Health Serv Res 3 (2003) 21
2. Armstrong D., Kline-Rogers E., Jani S.M., Goldman E.B., Fang J., Mukherjee D., et al. Potential impact of the HIPAA privacy rule on data collection in a registry of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Arch Intern Med 165 (2005) 1125-1129
3. Cann C.I., and Rothman K.J. IRBs and epidemiologic research: how inappropriate restrictions hamper studies. IRB 6 (1984) 5-7
4. Junghans C., Feder G., Hemingway H., Timmis A., and Jones M. Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies. BMJ 331 7522 (2005) 940
5. Luu A.D. The impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on research participation. J Biolaw Bus 8 4 (2005) 68-69
6. McCarthy D.B., Shatin D., Drinkard C.R., Kleinman J.H., and Gardner J.S. Medical records and privacy: empirical effects of legislation. Health Serv Res 34 1 Pt 2 (1999) 417-425
7. Mutch L., and King R. Obtaining parental consent-opting in or opting out?. Arch Dis Child 60 (1985) 979-980
8. Nelson R.M., and Merz J.F. Voluntariness of consent for research: an empirical and conceptual review. Med Care 40 9 Suppl (2002) V69-V80
9. Rogers C.G., Tyson J.E., Kennedy K.A., Broyles R.S., and Hickman J.F. Conventional consent with opting in versus simplified consent with opting out: an exploratory trial for studies that do not increase patient risk. J Pediatr 132 (1998) 606-611
10. Stanley B., Fraser J., and Cox N.H. Uptake of HIV screening in genitourinary medicine after change to "opt-out" consent. BMJ 326 7400 (2003) 1174
11. Verboncoeur C.J., Stewart A.L., King A.C., Rush S., McLellan B.Y., and Mills K. The use of refusal postcards in recruiting older adults. Ann Behav Med 22 (2000) 330-333
12. Young A.F., Dobson A.J., and Byles J.E. Health services research using linked records: who consents and what is the gain?. Aust N Z J Public Health 25 (2001) 417-420
13. Krousel-Wood M., Muntner P., Jannu A., Hyre A., and Breault J. Does waiver of written informed consent from the institutional review board affect response rate in a low-risk research study?. J Investig Med 54 4 (2006) 174-179
14. Lazovich D., Casey-Paal A., Korn J.E., and Slater J.S. Medical records as an alternative to self-report for measuring mammography utilization. J Public Health Manag Pract 5 3 (1999) 63-67
15. Woolf S.H., Rothemich S.F., Johnson R.E., and Marsland D.W. Selection bias from requiring patients to give consent to examine data for health services research. Arch Fam Med 9 (2000) 1111-1118
16. Yawn B.P., Yawn R.A., Geier G.R., Xia Z., and Jacobsen S.J. The impact of requiring patient authorization for use of data in medical records research. J Fam Pract 47 (1998) 361-365
17. Nosowsky R., and Giordano T.J. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy rule: implications for clinical research. Annu Rev Med 57 (2006) 575-590
18. Singer E, Mathiowetz N, Couper M. The impact of privacy and confidentiality concerns on survey participation: the case of the 1990 U.S. Census. Public Opin Q 1993; 57:465-482.
19. Dillard J., Hunter J., and Burgoon M. Sequential-request persuasive strategies. Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Health Commun Res 10 (1984) 461-488
20. Shah S., Harris T.J., Rink E., DeWilde S., Victor C.R., and Cook D.G. Do income questions and seeking consent to link medical records reduce survey response rates? A randomised controlled trial among older people. Br J Gen Pract 51 464 (2001) 223-225
21. Silva S.M., Smith W.T., and Bammer G. The effect of timing when seeking permission to access personal health services utilization records. Ann Epidemiol 12 (2002) 326-330
22. Patel H.R., Mirsadraee S., and Emberton M. The patient's dilemma: prostate cancer treatment choices. [Review]. J Urol 169 (2003) 828-833
23. Shaw M.J., Beebe T.J., Jensen H.L., and Adlis S.A. The use of monetary incentives in a community survey: impact on response rates, data quality, and cost. Health Serv Res 35 (2001) 1339-1346
24. Dunn K.M., Jordan K., Lacey R.J., Shapley M., and Jinks C. Patterns of consent in epidemiologic research: evidence from over 25,000 responders. Am J Epidemiol 159 (2004) 1087-1094
25. Groves R.M., Couper M.P., Presser S., Singer T., Tourangeau R., Acosta G.P., et al. Experiments in producing nonresponse bias. Public Opin Q 70 (2006) 720-736
26. Deyo R.A., Cherkin D.C., and Ciol M.A. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 45 (1992) 613-619
27. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (2006), AAPOR, Lenexa, KS
28. Barrett G., Cassell J.A., Peacock J.L., and Coleman M.P. National survey of British public's views on use of identifiable medical data by the National Cancer Registry. BMJ 332 7549 (2006) 1068-1072
29. Damschroder L.J., Pritts J.L., Neblo M.A., Kalarickal R.J., Creswell J.W., and Hayward R.A. Patients, privacy and trust: patients' willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records. Soc Sci Med 64 (2007) 223-235
30. Borowsky S.J., and Cowper D.C. Dual use of VA and non-VA primary care. J Gen Intern Med 14 5 (1999) 274-280
31. Bean-Mayberry B., Chang C.C., McNeil M., Hayes P., and Scholle S.H. Comprehensive care for women veterans: indicators of dual use of VA and non-VA providers. J Am Med Womens Assoc 59 3 (2004) 192-197