A cost-effectiveness analysis of subject recruitment strategies in the HIPAA era: results from a colorectal cancer screening adherence trial

Abstract

Background Changes in regulatory standards that restrict use of identifiable health information can reduce patient recruitment to clinical trials and increase recruitment costs.

Purpose To compare subject accrual rates and costs of three recruitment strategies that comply with new regulatory standards within the context of a clinical trial evaluating the impact of shared decision-making on colorectal cancer screening adherence.

Methods Sequential cohorts of English-speaking, average-risk patients due for colorectal cancer screening were allocated to one of three recruitment strategies: (1) a provider-initiated electronic ‘opt-in’ referral (Click) method; (2) a provider-mediated ‘opt-in’ referral letter (Letter) method; and (3) an investigator-initiated direct contact ‘opt-out’ (Call) method.

Results During distinct 6-month recruitment periods between March 2005 and April 2006, 100 potential subjects were identified using the Click method, 847 by the Letter method, and 758 by the Call method. After excluding ineligible prescreened patients, accrual rates were higher for the Call method (188 of 531 [35.4%]) than either the Click (12 of 72 [16.7%]; p = 0.002) or Letter (17 of 816 [2.1%]; p < 0.001) methods. The average cost per patient enrolled for the Call ($156) method was competitive with the Click ($129) and substantially lower than the Letter ($1967) methods; the Call method was least expensive if combined with automated patient identification ($99). Data extrapolation suggest it would take 2.4 years at an overall cost of $138,518 to recruit a target sample of 900 patients by the Call method, 40.5 years at $62,419 for the Click method and 27.9 years at $1,737,757 for the Letter method.

Limitations The study was nonrandomized and findings may not be generalizable to other research settings.

Conclusion The investigator-initiated direct contact ‘opt-out’ strategy is significantly more cost-effective and feasible than provider-initiated and provider-mediated ‘opt-in’ strategies for patient recruitment to clinical trials. Clinical Trials 2009; 6: 597—609. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Lovato LC , Hill K. , Hertert S. , et al. Recruitment for controlled clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography. Control Clin Trials 1997; 18: 328-52.

Ross S. , Grant A. , Counsell C. , et al. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 1143-56.

Haidich AB , Ioannidis JP Effect of early patient enrollment on the time to completion and publication of randomized controlled trials. Am J Epidemiol 2001; 154: 873-80.

Haidich AB , Ioannidis JP Patterns of patient enrollment in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 877-83.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information, Final Rule (Privacy Rule). Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Parts 160 and 164. Federal Register, 2002, Vol. 67, pp. 53181-273.

Nosowsky R. , Giordano TJ The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy rule: implications for clinical research. Annu Rev Med 2006; 57: 575-90.

Gunn PP , Fremont AM , Bottrell M. , et al. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule: a practical guide for researchers. Med Care 2004; 42: 321-27.

Holt E. The HIPAA Privacy Rule, Research, and IRBs. Applied Clinial Trials, June 2003. Available at: http://actmagazine.findpharma.com/appliedclinicaltrials/Feature±Article/The-HIPAA-Privacy-Rule-Research-and-IRBs/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/80209 (accessed 31 January 2008 ).

Tu JV , Willison DJ , Silver FL , et al. Impracticability of informed consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. N Engl J Med 2004 ; 350: 1414-21.

10.

Ness RB A year is a terrible thing to waste: early experience with HIPAA. Ann Epidemiol 2005; 15: 85-86.

11.

Armstrong D. , Kline-Rogers E. , Jani SM , et al. Potential impact of the HIPAA privacy rule on data collection in a registry of patients with acute coronary syndrome . Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 1125-29.

12.

Wolf MS , Bennett CL Local perspective of the impact of the HIPAA privacy rule on research. Cancer 2006; 106: 474-79.

13.

Krousel-Wood M. , Muntner P. , Jannu A. , et al. Does waiver of written informed consent from the institutional review board affect response rate in a low-risk research study? J Investig Med 2006; 54: 174-79.

14.

Ness RB Influence of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on health research. JAMA 2007; 298: 2164-70.

15.

Woolf SH , Rothemich SF , Johnson RE , Marsland DW Selection bias from requiring patients to give consent to examine data for health services research. Arch Fam Med 2000 ; 9: 1111-18.

16.

Junghans C. , Feder G. , Hemingway H. , et al. Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of ‘‘opt-in’’ versus ‘‘opt-out’’ strategies. BMJ 2005; 331: 940.

17.

Al-Shahi R. , Vousden C. , Warlow C. Bias from requiring explicit consent from all participants in observational research: prospective, population based study. BMJ 2005; 331: 942.

18.

Strobl J. , Cave E. , Walley T. Data protection legislation: interpretation and barriers to research. BMJ 2000; 321: 890-92.

19.

Al-Shahi R. , Warlow C. Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit. BMJ 2000; 321: 1031-32.

20.

Ward HJ , Cousens SN , Smith-Bathgate B. , et al. Obstacles to conducting epidemiological research in the UK general population. BMJ 2004; 329: 277-79.

21.

Metcalfe C. , Martin RM , Noble S. , et al. Low risk research using routinely collected identifiable health information without informed consent: encounters with the Patient Information Advisory Group. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 37-40.

22.

Hewison J. , Haines A. Overcoming barriers to recruitment in health research. BMJ 2006; 333: 300-02.

23.

Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government. Fiscal year 2009. Avaiable at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/hhs.html . (accessed 6 February 2008).

24.

Foy R. , Parry J. , Duggan A. , et al. How evidence based are recruitment strategies to randomized controlled trials in primary care? Experience from seven studies. Fam Pract 2003; 20: 83-92.

25.

Beskow LM , Sandler RS , Weinberger M. Research recruitment through US central cancer registries: balancing privacy and scientific issues. Am J Public Health 2006; 96: 1920-26.

26.

Sugarman J. , Regan K. , Parker B. , et al. Ethical ramifications of alternative means of recruiting research participants from cancer registries. Cancer 1999; 86: 647-51.

27.

Beskow LM , Sandler RS , Millikan RC , Weinberger M. Patient perspectives on research recruitment through cancer registries. Cancer Causes Control 2005; 16: 1171-75.

28.

Beskow LM , Millikan RC , Sandler RS , et al. The effect of physician permission versus notification on research recruitment through cancer registries (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2006; 17: 315-23.

29.

Inskip HM , Godfrey KM , Robinson SM , et al. Cohort profile: The Southampton Women’s Survey. Int J Epidemiol 2006; 35: 42-48.

30.

Mosis G. , Dieleman JP , Stricker B. , et al. A randomized database study in general practice yielded quality data but patient recruitment in routine consultation was not practical. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 497-502.

31.

Dziak K. , Anderson R. , Sevick MA , et al. Variations among Institutional Review Board reviews in a multisite health services research study. Health Serv Res 2005; 40: 279-90.

32.

Pakhomov S. , Weston SA , Jacobsen SJ , et al. Electronic medical records for clinical research: application to the identification of heart failure. Am J Manag Care 2007; 13: 281-88.

33.

Kempf AM , Remington PL New challenges for telephone survey research in the twenty-first century. Annu Rev Public Health 2007; 28: 113-26.