Recruitment and Consent in an observational study

Abstract

Objective: The study sought to explore the consent rate and associated potential bias across a cohort in a large longitudinal population based study. Research design: Data were taken from a study designed to examine the effects of the reintroduction of community water fluoridation on children’s oral health over a five-year period. Children were recruited from a fluoridated and non-fluoridated area in Cumbria, referred to as Group 1 and Group 2. Results: Data were available for 3138 individuals. The consent rate was 12.91 percentage points lower in Group 2 than Group 1 (95% CI -16.27 to -9.56, p⟨0.001). The population in Group 2 was more deprived (higher Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)) than Group 1 before consent was taken. Consent was not associated with deprivation in either group. Conclusion: The cohort appeared to be unaffected by IMD-related non-consent. However there was a difference in consent rate between the two groups. With the population in Group 1 being more deprived than Group 2, it will be important to incorporate these differences into the analysis at the end of this longitudinal study.

Keywords

Public health consent bias deprivation water fluoridation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aliyu

Mahmud

S. M.

(2016); Postal recruitment and consent obtainment from index cases of narcolepsy. BMC Medical Ethics 17, 6.

Bethlehem

(2009): Applied Survey Methods. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Flory

Emanuel

(2004): Interventions to Improve Research Participants’ Understanding in Informed Consent for Research. Journal of the American Medical Association 292, 1593-601

Foster

Horspool

K.A.

Edwards

Thomas

C.L.

Salisbury

Montgomery

A.A.

(2015): Who does not participate in telehealth trials and why? A cross-sectional survey. Trials, BioMed Central 16, 258.

Hewison

Haines

(2006): Overcoming barriers to recruitment in health research. BMJ (Clinical research) 333, 300–2.

Horvitz

D. G.

Thompson

D. J.

(1952): A Generalization of Sampling Without Replacement From a Finite Universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47, 663–685.

Junghans

Jones

(2007): Consent bias in research: how to avoid it. Heart 93, 1024–5.

Kho

M. E.

(2009): Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review. British Medical Journal 338, b866–b866

Magnus

Irgens

L.M.

Haug

Nystad

Skjaerven

Stoltenberg

(2006): Cohort profile: The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study. International Journal of Epidemiology 35, 1146–1150

10.

Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government (2015): English indices of deprivation 2015, Statistical Release. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2015 (Accessed: 30 April 2019).

11.

Nakash

R. A.

Hutton

J.L.

Jørstad-Stein

E.C.

Gates

Lamb

S.E.

(2006): Maximising response to postal questionnaires--a systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology 6, 5.

12.

Sakshaug

J. W.

Couper

M.P.

Ofstedal

M.B.

Weir

D.R.

(2012): Linking Survey and Administrative Records: Mechanisms of Consent. Sociological Methods & Research 41, 535–569.

13.

Spence

White

Adamson

A.J.

Matthews

J.N.S.

(2015): Does the use of passive or active consent affect consent or completion rates, or dietary data quality? Repeat cross-sectional survey among school children aged 11-12 years. British Medical Journal 5, 6457–6457.

14.

StataCorp (2015): ‘Stata Statistical Software: Release 15’. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.

15.

U S Bureau of Labor Statistics (1997) National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Available at: https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy97/using-and-understanding-the-data/sample-weights-design-effects (Accessed: 31 August 2016).

16.

Woolfenden

Eapen

Axelsson

Hendry

Jalaludin

Dissanayake

(2016): Who is our cohort: recruitment, representativeness, baseline risk and retention in the “Watch Me Grow” study? BMC Pediatrics, 16, 46.

17.

Zhang

L.C.

Thomsen

and Kleven, Ø. (2013): On the Use of Auxiliary and Paradata for Dealing With Non-sampling Errors in Household Surveys. International Statistical Review 81, 270–288.