Background: Privacy laws have recently created restrictions on how researchers can approach study participants.
Method: In a randomised trial of 152 patients, 50–74 years old, in a family practice, 60 were randomly selected to opt-out and 92 to opt-in methods. Patients were sent an introductory letter by their doctor in two phases, opt-out before and opt-in after introduction of the new Privacy Legislation in December 2001. Opt-out patients were contacted by researchers. Opt-in patients were contacted if patients responded by email, free telephone number or a reply-paid card.
Results: Opt-in recruited fewer patients (47%; 43/92) after invitation compared with opt-out (67%; 40/60); (−20%; [−4% to −36%]). No proportional difference in recruitment was found between opt-in and opt-out groups varied by age, sex or socioeconomic status. The opt-in group had significantly more people in active decision-making roles (+30%; [10% to 50%]; p = 0.003). Non-significant trends were observed towards opt-in being less likely to include people with lower education (−11.8%; [−30% to 6.4%]; p = 0.13) and people who were not screened (−19.1%; [−40.1% to 1.9%]; p = 0.08). Opt-in was more likely to recruit people with a family history of colorectal cancer (+12.7%; [−2.8%, 28.2%]; p = 0.12).
Conclusions: The number of participants required to be approached was markedly increased in opt-in recruitment. Existing participants (eg, screening attendees) with a vested interest such as increased risk, and those preferring an active role in health decision making and with less education were likely to be recruited in opt-in. Research costs and generalisability are affected by implementing privacy legislation.
- FOBT, faecal occult blood testing
- SES, socioeconomic status
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding: This project was funded by the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Program grant 211205.
Competing interests: None declared.