• 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

索要唯一的个人标识符或提供纪念激励措施并不会影响对健康记录关联的总体同意:一项队列研究中的随机对照试验证据。

Requesting a unique personal identifier or providing a souvenir incentive did not affect overall consent to health record linkage: evidence from an RCT nested within a cohort.

作者信息

Ni Michael Y, Li Tom K, Hui Rex W H, McDowell Ian, Leung Gabriel M

机构信息

School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, 7 Sassoon Road, Hong Kong, China.

School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, 7 Sassoon Road, Hong Kong, China.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Apr;84:142-149. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.003. Epub 2017 Jan 20.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.003
PMID:28115256
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

It is unclear if unique personal identifiers should be requested from participants for health record linkage: this permits high-quality data linkage but at the potential cost of lower consent rates due to privacy concerns.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Drawing from a sampling frame based on the FAMILY Cohort, using a 2 × 2 factorial design, we randomly assigned 1,200 participants to (1) request for Hong Kong Identity Card number (HKID) or no request and (2) receiving a souvenir incentive (valued at USD4) or no incentive. The primary outcome was consent to health record linkage. We also investigated associations between demographics, health status, and postal reminders with consent.

RESULTS

Overall, we received signed consent forms from 33.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.6-36.0%) of respondents. We did not find an overall effect of requesting HKID (-4.3%, 95% CI -9.8% to 1.2%) or offering souvenir incentives (2.4%, 95% CI -3.1% to 7.9%) on consent to linkage. In subgroup analyses, requesting HKID significantly reduced consent among adults aged 18-44 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.94, compared to no request). Souvenir incentives increased consent among women (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13-2.11, compared to no souvenirs).

CONCLUSIONS

Requesting a unique personal identifier or providing a souvenir incentive did not affect overall consent to health record linkage.

摘要

目的

对于是否应向参与者索要唯一的个人标识符以进行健康记录关联尚不清楚:这能实现高质量的数据关联,但可能因隐私担忧而导致同意率降低。

研究设计与设置

基于家庭队列的抽样框架,采用2×2析因设计,我们将1200名参与者随机分配为:(1)索要香港身份证号码(HKID)或不索要;(2)给予纪念品激励(价值4美元)或不给予激励。主要结果是对健康记录关联的同意情况。我们还研究了人口统计学特征、健康状况以及邮寄提醒与同意之间的关联。

结果

总体而言,我们收到了33.3%(95%置信区间[CI] 30.6 - 36.0%)的受访者签署的同意书。我们未发现索要HKID(-4.3%,95% CI -9.8%至1.2%)或提供纪念品激励(2.4%,95% CI -3.1%至7.9%)对关联同意率有总体影响。在亚组分析中,索要HKID显著降低了18 - 44岁成年人的同意率(优势比[OR] 0.53,95% CI 0.30 - 0.94,与不索要相比)。纪念品激励提高了女性的同意率(OR 1.55,95% CI 1.13 - 2.11,与不提供纪念品相比)。

结论

索要唯一的个人标识符或提供纪念品激励并未影响对健康记录关联的总体同意率。

相似文献

1
Requesting a unique personal identifier or providing a souvenir incentive did not affect overall consent to health record linkage: evidence from an RCT nested within a cohort.索要唯一的个人标识符或提供纪念激励措施并不会影响对健康记录关联的总体同意:一项队列研究中的随机对照试验证据。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Apr;84:142-149. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.003. Epub 2017 Jan 20.
2
Large panel-survey data demonstrated country-level and ethnic minority variation in consent for health record linkage.大样本调查数据显示,在同意健康记录链接方面,国家层面和少数民族群体存在差异。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;68(6):684-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.011. Epub 2015 Jan 27.
3
[Cohort study of cancer incidence in patients with type 2 diabetes: record linkage of encrypted data from an external cohort with data from the epidemiological Cancer Registry of North Rhine-Westphalia].2型糖尿病患者癌症发病率的队列研究:将外部队列的加密数据与北莱茵-威斯特法伦州癌症流行病学登记处的数据进行记录链接
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2014 Jan;57(1):52-9. doi: 10.1007/s00103-013-1880-5.
4
Record linkage research and informed consent: who consents?记录链接研究与知情同意:谁来同意?
BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Feb 12;7:18. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-18.
5
Consent to data linkage in a large online epidemiological survey of 18-23 year old Australian women in 2012-13.同意将数据链接到 2012-13 年对 18-23 岁澳大利亚女性进行的一项大型在线流行病学调查中。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Dec 11;19(1):235. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0880-z.
6
[The Willingness to Consent to the Linkage of Primary and Secondary Data: An Analysis Based on a Survey of Patients with Primary Breast Cancer in Northrhine Westfalia].[对原发性和继发性数据关联的同意意愿:基于对北莱茵-威斯特法伦州原发性乳腺癌患者的调查分析]
Gesundheitswesen. 2017 Mar;79(3):210-218. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1564182. Epub 2015 Nov 30.
7
Analysis of four studies in a comparative framework reveals: health linkage consent rates on British cohort studies higher than on UK household panel surveys.在一个比较框架下对四项研究的分析表明:英国队列研究中的健康关联同意率高于英国家庭调查小组的同意率。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Nov 27;14:125. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-125.
8
Professionally designed information materials and telephone reminders improved consent response rates: evidence from an RCT nested within a cohort study.专业设计的信息材料和电话提醒提高了同意率:来自队列研究中的一项随机对照试验的证据。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Aug;68(8):877-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.014. Epub 2015 Mar 31.
9
Privacy preserving probabilistic record linkage (P3RL): a novel method for linking existing health-related data and maintaining participant confidentiality.隐私保护概率性记录链接(P3RL):一种链接现有健康相关数据并维护参与者隐私的新方法。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 May 30;15:46. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0038-6.
10
Informed consent for record linkage: a systematic review.知情同意书用于记录链接:系统评价。
J Med Ethics. 2012 Oct;38(10):639-42. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100208. Epub 2012 Mar 8.

引用本文的文献

1
Randomised trials conducted using cohorts: a scoping review.使用队列进行的随机试验:范围综述。
BMJ Open. 2024 Mar 8;14(3):e075601. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075601.
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
A systematic literature review of health consumer attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: a focus on privacy, trust, and transparency.
健康消费者对健康管理和临床试验数据二次使用和共享的态度的系统文献综述:重点关注隐私、信任和透明度。
Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 9;9(1):235. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01481-9.