• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

患者同意程序会影响卫生服务研究的参与率吗?

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

作者信息

Nelson Karin, Garcia Rosa Elena, Brown Julie, Mangione Carol M, Louis Thomas A, Keeler Emmett, Cretin Shan

机构信息

VA Puget Sound Health Care System, University of Washington, 1660 South Columbian Way (S-111-GIMC), Seattle, WA 98108-1597, USA.

出版信息

Med Care. 2002 Apr;40(4):283-8. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200204000-00004.

DOI:10.1097/00005650-200204000-00004
PMID:12021684
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the effects of Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements to contact potential research participants.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between requirements to contact potential research subjects and participation rates in a multisite health services research study. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS: Prospective observational study of survey participation by 2673 individuals with diabetes and 1974 individuals with congestive heart failure treated at 15 clinical sites in the United States that had implemented a quality improvement intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Telephone survey response rates.

RESULTS

Of 15 IRBs, seven required sites to obtain authorization from participants to release contact information to the study team. Five required oral and two required written advance permission. The response rate was 58% (913/1571) at sites where no advance permission was required, 39% (989/2530) from sites that required oral advance permission and 27% (145/546, P <0.001) at sites requiring written advance permission. Although 85% of eligible participants contacted directly by the study team consented to complete the survey, only 43% of individuals at sites requiring written advance permission allowed the release of contact information to the study team.

CONCLUSIONS

Many potential participants did not grant advance permission to be contacted by the study team. Requiring advance permission reduced participation rates, especially at sites requiring written authorization.

摘要

背景

很少有研究探讨机构审查委员会(IRB)关于联系潜在研究参与者的要求所产生的影响。

目的

在一项多中心卫生服务研究中,考察联系潜在研究对象的要求与参与率之间的关联。

研究设计、研究对象:对在美国15个临床地点接受治疗的2673名糖尿病患者和1974名充血性心力衰竭患者参与调查的情况进行前瞻性观察研究,这些地点实施了一项质量改进干预措施。

主要观察指标

电话调查的回应率。

结果

在15个IRB中,7个要求研究地点获得参与者授权,以便向研究团队提供联系信息。5个要求口头预先许可,2个要求书面预先许可。在无需预先许可的研究地点,回应率为58%(913/1571);在要求口头预先许可的研究地点,回应率为39%(989/2530);在要求书面预先许可的研究地点,回应率为27%(145/546,P<0.001)。尽管研究团队直接联系的符合条件的参与者中有85%同意完成调查,但在要求书面预先许可的研究地点,只有43%的个体允许向研究团队提供联系信息。

结论

许多潜在参与者未给予研究团队预先许可以进行联系。要求预先许可降低了参与率,尤其是在要求书面授权的研究地点。

相似文献

1
Do patient consent procedures affect participation rates in health services research?患者同意程序会影响卫生服务研究的参与率吗?
Med Care. 2002 Apr;40(4):283-8. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200204000-00004.
2
Variations among Institutional Review Board reviews in a multisite health services research study.一项多中心卫生服务研究中各机构审查委员会审查之间的差异。
Health Serv Res. 2005 Feb;40(1):279-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00353.x.
3
Does waiver of written informed consent from the institutional review board affect response rate in a low-risk research study?机构审查委员会放弃书面知情同意是否会影响低风险研究中的应答率?
J Investig Med. 2006 May;54(4):174-9. doi: 10.2310/6650.2006.05031.
4
The treating physician as active gatekeeper in the recruitment of research subjects.主治医生作为研究对象招募的积极把关人。
Med Care. 2001 Dec;39(12):1339-44. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200112000-00009.
5
Evaluation of Institutional Review Board review and informed consent in publications of human research in critical care medicine.重症医学领域人体研究出版物中机构审查委员会审查及知情同意的评估
Crit Care Med. 1998 Sep;26(9):1596-602. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199809000-00035.
6
A retrospective analysis of institutional review board and informed consent practices in EMS research.对急救医疗服务(EMS)研究中机构审查委员会及知情同意实践的回顾性分析
Ann Emerg Med. 1994 Jan;23(1):70-4. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(94)70011-7.
7
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.美国临床肿瘤学会政策声明:临床研究监督
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
8
Why we should not seek individual informed consent for participation in health services research.为何我们不应寻求个体对参与卫生服务研究的知情同意。
J Med Ethics. 2002 Oct;28(5):313-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.28.5.313.
9
Variation in standards of research compensation and child assent practices: a comparison of 69 institutional review board-approved informed permission and assent forms for 3 multicenter pediatric clinical trials.研究补偿标准和儿童同意程序的差异:对3项多中心儿科临床试验的69份机构审查委员会批准的知情同意书和同意表格的比较
Pediatrics. 2006 May;117(5):1706-11. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1233.
10
Variability in IRBs regarding parental acceptance of passive consent.机构审查委员会在家长对被动同意的接受程度方面存在差异。
Pediatrics. 2014 Aug;134(2):e496-503. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-4190. Epub 2014 Jul 7.

引用本文的文献

1
A prospective evaluation of the clinical safety and effectiveness of a COVID-19 Urgent Eyecare Service across five areas in England.一项针对英格兰五个地区 COVID-19 紧急眼科服务的临床安全性和有效性的前瞻性评估。
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2022 Jan;42(1):94-109. doi: 10.1111/opo.12916. Epub 2021 Nov 10.
2
A systematic literature review of attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: a focus on consent.关于对卫生行政和临床试验数据二次使用与共享态度的系统文献综述:以同意为重点。
Syst Rev. 2021 May 4;10(1):132. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01663-z.
3
Recruitment of trial participants through electronic medical record patient portal messaging: A pilot study.
通过电子病历患者门户消息招募试验参与者:一项试点研究。
Clin Trials. 2020 Feb;17(1):30-38. doi: 10.1177/1740774519873657. Epub 2019 Oct 3.
4
Barriers to Recruitment in Pediatric Obesity Trials: Comparing Opt-in and Opt-out Recruitment Approaches.儿科肥胖试验中的招募障碍:比较选择加入和选择退出招募方法。
J Pediatr Psychol. 2017 Mar 1;42(2):174-185. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsw054.
5
A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review.关于研究伦理审查质量与有效性的实证研究的范围综述
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 30;10(7):e0133639. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133639. eCollection 2015.
6
Research in the CKD clinic: highs and lows.慢性肾脏病临床研究:高峰与低谷。
Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2014 Jul;21(4):344-8. doi: 10.1053/j.ackd.2014.02.012.
7
Patient characteristics and participation in a genetic study: a type 2 diabetes cohort.患者特征及参与基因研究:2 型糖尿病队列研究。
J Investig Med. 2014 Jan;62(1):26-32. doi: 10.2310/JIM.0000000000000022.
8
Participant recruitment in sensitive surveys: a comparative trial of 'opt in' versus 'opt out' approaches.敏感调查中的参与者招募:“选择加入”与“选择退出”方法的比较试验。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Jan 11;13:3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-3.
9
Recruitment and follow-up of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: the AYA HOPE Study.青少年及青年癌症幸存者的招募与随访:AYA HOPE 研究。
J Cancer Surviv. 2011 Sep;5(3):305-14. doi: 10.1007/s11764-011-0173-y. Epub 2011 Jan 28.
10
Public opinions about participating in health research.公众对参与健康研究的看法。
Can J Public Health. 2010 Mar-Apr;101(2):159-64. doi: 10.1007/BF03404364.