Selection bias resulting from the requirement for prior consent in observational research: A community cohort of people with ischaemic heart disease

Department of General Practice, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Heart (British Cardiac Society) (Impact Factor: 5.6). 09/2007; 93(9):1116-20. DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2006.111591
Source: PubMed


To evaluate differences between adults who consent to participate in observational research and those who do not.
Prospective, population-based cohort study.
35 randomised Irish general practices.
1609 adults with ischaemic heart disease identified in 2000-1.
Medical records search, postal questionnaire and consent form in 2005-6.
Differences in demographic and prognostic risk factors between consenters and non-consenters.
At follow-up, charts were located for 1592 patients (98.9%). Questionnaires were sent to 1269 patients and 876 were returned (69%). Of these, 574 (65.5%) gave consent for participation in further research. Logistic regression identified four characteristics as independently positively predictive of consent to participation in further research among questionnaire responders: having undergone percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty was associated with an increased odds of consent, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.77 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.86), as was a last recorded blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg (OR = 1.45 (1.00 to 2.09)), a last recorded total cholesterol level <5 mmol/l (OR = 1.71 (1.16 to 2.54)) and being an ex-smoker rather than a current smoker or non-smoker (OR = 1.73 (1.17 to 2.57)).
This research demonstrates the potential impact of consent bias in observational research on ischaemic heart disease, a disease of everyday clinical importance in Europe. It demonstrates that clinically important prognostic variables may be associated with consent preferences. Future cohorts, dependent upon prior written consent, may contain disproportionate numbers of those who have made healthy lifestyle decisions, have previously benefited from treatment or whose clinical risk factors are already well managed. As a result, the generalisability of such research may be diminished and the effects of treatments over- or underestimated.

Download full-text


Available from: Molly Byrne, May 30, 2014
  • Source
    • "In the other Canadian provinces, school personnel were fully informed of the purpose of the assessment (i.e., full disclosure). However, it was anticipated that such full disclosure may result in volunteer or consent bias, a form of selection bias where those who volunteer or consent to participate differ from those who do not, leading to an incorrect assessment of performance capacity [19-21]. In Quebec, we explored the potential role of volunteer or consent bias by approaching school personnel in 2 different ways: 1. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There has been no large study characterizing selection bias in allergy and evaluating school personnel's ability to use an epinephrine auto-injector (EpiPen®). Our objective was to determine if the consent process introduces selection bias by comparing 2 methods of soliciting participation of school personnel in a study evaluating their ability to demonstrate the EpiPen®. School personnel from randomly selected schools in Quebec were approached using a 1) partial or 2) full disclosure approach and were assessed on their ability to use the EpiPen® and identify anaphylaxis. 343 school personnel participated. In the full disclosure group, the participation rate was lower: 21.9% (95%CI, 19.0%-25.2%) versus 40.7% (95%CI, 36.1%-45.3%), but more participants achieved a perfect score: 26.3% (95%CI, 19.6%-33.9%) versus 15.8% (95%CI, 10.8%-21.8%), and identified 3 signs of anaphylaxis: 71.8% (95%CI, 64.0%-78.7%) versus 55.6% (95%CI, 48.2%-62.9%). Selection bias is suspected as school personnel who were fully informed of the purpose of the assessment were less likely to participate; those who participated among the fully informed were more likely to earn perfect scores and identify anaphylaxis. As the process of consent can influence participation and bias outcomes, researchers and Ethics Boards need to consider conditions under which studies can proceed without full consent. Despite training, school personnel perform poorly when asked to demonstrate the EpiPen®.
    Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology 04/2012; 8(1):4. DOI:10.1186/1710-1492-8-4 · 2.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: See article on page 1116
    Heart (British Cardiac Society) 10/2007; 93(9):1024-5. DOI:10.1136/hrt.2007.120113 · 5.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate differences between adults who participated in a secondary prevention of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) programme and those who did not. Population-based cohort study. A random selection of 12 Irish general practices. A total of 493 adults with IHD identified in 2000/2001. Medical records search and postal questionnaires in 2000/2001 and 2005/2006. Differences in demographic characteristics and indicators of process of care and risk factor management between participants and non-participants. Multiple logistic regression confirmed that female gender was associated with a reduced likelihood of participation in the secondary prevention programme [odds ratio (OR) 0.53 (95% CI: 0.32-0.87)], while an adequately controlled total cholesterol level was associated with an increased likelihood of enrollment [OR 1.82 (95% CI: 1.18-2.80)]. There is limited evidence that biases, which have been shown to affect participation in research, also affect participation in care programmes in everyday practice. A gender bias appears to have affected the enrollment of participants for the secondary preventive programme considered by this study, with enrollment favouring men with well-managed cholesterol. Reimbursement dependent upon patient adherence may incentivise the enrollment of adherent patients, although the influence of patient choice is unclear: the need to maintain records relating to patients who opt out of such interventions is thus highlighted.
    International Journal of Clinical Practice 11/2007; 61(10):1767-72. DOI:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01548.x · 2.57 Impact Factor
Show more