Does Consent Bias Research?

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 27-37

  Rothstein, Mark A ^a   Shoben, Abigail B ^b  

^a University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

and informed consent; consent bias; research; selection bias

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLOOD DONOR; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHICAL THEORY; ETHICS; EXERCISE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; POLICY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; RISK; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BLOOD DONORS; ETHICAL THEORY; ETHICS, RESEARCH; EXERCISE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE (U.S.); ODDS RATIO; PATIENT SELECTION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; SELECTION BIAS; SOCIAL VALUES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84875936454     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2013.767955     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Al-Shahi, R., Vousden, C. and Warlow, C. 2005. Bias from requiring explicit consent from all participants in observational research: Prospective, population based study. British Medical Journal,: 331 doi:10.1136/bmj.38624.397569.68
2. Armstrong, D., Kline-Rogers, E.Sandeep, M. J. 2005. Potential impact of the HIPAA privacy rule on data collection in a registry of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165: 1125-1129.
3. Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th ed, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4. Beebe, T. J., Talley, N. J.Camilleri, M. 2007. The HIPAA authorization form and effects on survey response rates, nonresponse bias, and data quality: A randomized community study. Medical Care, 45(10): 959-965.
5. Beecher, H. K. 1966. Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274: 1354-1360.
6. Bross, I. D. J. 1967. Pertinency of an extraneous variable. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 20: 487-495.
7. Buckley, B., Murphy, A. W.Byrne, M. 2007. Selection bias resulting from the requirement for prior consent in observational research: A community cohort of people with ischaemic heart disease. Heart, 93: 1116-1120.
8. Chavalarais, D. and Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2010. Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11): 1025-1215. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.011
9. Damery, S., Ryan, R.McManus, R. J. 2011. The effect of seeking consent on the representativeness of patient cohorts: Iron-deficiency anaemia and colorectal cancer. Colorectal Disease, 13(11): e366-e373.
10. Department of Health and Human Services. 2011. Advance notice of proposed rulemaking, Human subjects research protections: Enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Federal Register, 76: 44512-44531.
11. Dunlop, A. L., Graham, T.Leroy, Z. 2007. The impact of HIPAA authorization on willingness to participate in clinical research. Annals of Epidemiology, 17(11): 899-905.
12. Dunlop, A. L., Leroy, Z.Logue, K. M. 2011. Preconsent education about research processes improved African Americans' willingness to participate in clinical research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(8): 872-877.
13. Dunn, K. M., Jordan, K.Lacey, R. J. 2004. Patterns of consent in epidemiologic research: Evidence from over 25,000 responders. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159: 1087-1094.
14. Emanuel, E. J., Crouch, R. A.Arras, J. D. 2003. Ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical research., Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15. Emanuel, E. J. and Menikoff, J. 2011. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. New England Journal of Medicine, 365: 114-1149.
16. Goldenberg, A. J., Hull, S. C.Botkin, J. R. 2009. Pediatric biobanks: Approaching informed consent for continuing research after children grow up. Journal of Pediatrics, 155: 578-583.
17. Greenland, S. 1996. Basic methods of sensitivity analysis of biases. International Journal of Epidemiology, 25(6): 1107-1116.
18. Greenland, S. 2003. Quantifying biases in causal models: Classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias. Epidemiology, 14(3): 300-306.
19. Grimes, D. A. and Schulz, K. F. 2002. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet, 359: 248-252.
20. Haneuse, S., Schildcrout, J.Crane, P. 2008. Adjustment for selection bias in observational studies with application to the analysis of autopsy data. Neuroepidemiology, 32: 229-239.
21. Harris, J. 2005. Scientific research is a moral duty. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(4): 242-248.
22. Hernan, M. A., Hernandez-Diaz, S. and Robins, J. M. 2004. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology, 15(5): 615-625.
23. Hoffman, S. and Podgurski, A. 2012. Balancing privacy, autonomy, and scientific needs in electronic health records research. SMU Law Review, 65: 85-144.
24. Hull, S. C., Sharp, R. R.Botkin, J. R. 2008. Patients' views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(10): 62-70.
25. Institute of Medicine. 2009. Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing privacy, improving health through research., Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26. Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2011. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8): e124 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
27. Jonas, H. 1969. Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. Daedalus, 98: 219-247.
28. Jones, J. H. 1993. Bad blood: The Tuskegee syphilis experiment., New York, NY: Free Press.
29. Katz, J. 1996. "Statement by Committee Member Jay Katz". In Final report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, ed., 545, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments
30. Kaufman, D. J., Murphy-Bollinger, J.Scott, J. 2009. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. American Journal of Human Genetics, 85: 643-654.
31. Kho, M. E., Duffett, M.Willison, D. J. 2009. Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 338: b866 doi:10.1136/bmj.b866
32. Lin, D. Y., Psaty, B. M. and Kronmal, R. A. 1998. Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies. Biometrics, 54(3): 948-963.
33. Lo, B. and Barnes, M. 2011. Protecting research participants while reducing regulatory burdens. Journal of the American Medical Association, 306: 2260-2261.
34. Macleod, U. and Watt, G. C. M. 2008. The impact of consent on observational research: A comparison of outcomes from consenters and non consenters to an observational study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8: 15
35. MacQuillan, G. M. and Porter, K. S. 2011. Consent for future genetic research: The NHANES experience in 2007-2008. IRB: Ethics in Human Research, 33(1): 9-14.
36. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/briefing/2005-4178b_09_02_Belmont%20Report.pdf (accessed November 29, 2011)
37. Nuremberg Code. 1947. Available at: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html (accessed November 22, 2011)
38. Orentlicher, D. 2005. Making research a requirement of treatment: Why we should sometimes let doctors pressure patients to participate in research. Hastings Center Report, 35(5): 20-28.
39. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 2011. Moral science: Protecting participants in human subjects research, Washington, DC: Presidential Commission. Available at: www.bioethics.gov (accessed January 9, 2012)
40. Pulley, J., Clayton, E.Bernard, G. R. 2010. Principles of human subjects protections applied in an opt-out deidentified biobank. Clinical and Translational Science, 3(1): 42-48.
41. Rennie, S. 2011. Viewing research participation as a moral obligation: In whose interest?. Hastings Center Report, 41(2): 40-47.
42. Rhodes, R. 2008. In defense of the moral duty to participate in biomedical research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(10): 37-38.
43. Robins, J. M., Rotnitzky, A. and Zhao, L. P. 1994. Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89: 846-866.
44. Roser, M. A. 2010. State agrees to destroy more than 5 million stored blood samples from newborns. Austin American-Statesman, December 23. Available at: www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional/state-agrees-to-destroy-more-than-5-million-stored/nRZK9 (accessed November 18, 2012)
45. Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S. and Lash, T. L. 2008. Modern epidemiology, 3rd ed., Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
46. Rothstein, M. A. 2010. Is deidentification sufficient to protect health privacy in research?. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(9): 3-11.
47. Rothstein, M. A. 2009. Improve privacy in research by eliminating informed consent? IOM report misses the mark. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 37: 507-512.
48. Schaefer, G. O., Emanuel, E. J. and Wertheimer, A. 2009. The obligation to participate in biomedical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302: 67-72.
49. Schlesselman, J. J. 1978. Assessing effects of confounding variables. American Journal of Epidemiology, 108: 3-8.
50. Shavers, V. L., Lynch, C. F. and Burmeister, L. F. 2002. Racial differences in factors that influence the willingness to participate in medical research. Annals of Epidemiology, 12: 248-256.
51. Skloot, R. 2010. The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks, New York, NY: Crown.
52. Tu, J. V., Willison, D. J.Silver, F. L. 2004. Impracticability of informed consent in the registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. New England Journal of Medicine, 350(14): 1414-1421.
53. VanderWeele, T. J. and Arah, O. A. 2011. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders. Epidemiology, 22(1): 42-51.
54. Wendler, D. 2011. How to enroll participants in research ethically. Journal of the American Medical Association., 305: 1587-1588.
55. Wendler, D., Kington, R.Madans, J. 2006. Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research?. PLoS Medicine, 3(2): e19 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030019
56. Westin, A. F. 2007. IOM project survey findings on health research and privacy Available at: www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Research/HIPAAandResearch/AlanWestinIOMsrvyRept.ashx (accessed November 29, 2011)
57. Williams, I. C. and Corbie-Smith, G. 2006. Investigator beliefs and reported success in recruiting minority participants. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26(6): 580-586.
58. Willison, D. J., Steeves, V.Charles, C. 2009. Consent for use of personal information for health research: Do people with potentially stigmatizing health conditions and the general public differ in their opinions?. BMC Medical Ethics, 10: 10
59. Woolf, S. H., Rothemich, S. F.Johnson, R. E. 2000. Selection bias from requiring patients to give consent to examine data for health services research. Archives of Family Medicine, 10: 1111-1118.
60. World Medical Association. 2004. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects Available at: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/helsinki.html (accessed November 22, 2011)
61. Yanagawa, T. 1984. Case-control studies: Assessing the effect of a confounding factor. Biometrika, 71(1): 191-194.