Article

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: 6.02). 09/2007; 93(9):1116-20. DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2006.111591
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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

Full-text

Available from: Molly Byrne, May 30, 2014
1 Follower
 · 
80 Views
  • 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 · 6.02 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 · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years several factors have affected the public’s relationship with health care research: increased data protection legislation and the resultant consent requirements; access to unforeseen levels of both information and misinformation through mass media; and a growing culture of personal choice which may have eroded the perceived importance of activities whose benefits are societal rather than personal. This article considers these factors and their implications and highlights the need for health care researchers to engage more effectively with the public in order to ensure its continued support.
    Primary Health Care Research & Development 12/2007; 9(01):3 - 6. DOI:10.1017/S1463423607000497
Show more