Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of “opt-in” versus “opt-out” strategies
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of “opt-in” versus “opt-out” strategies
Do you wish to request the book?
Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of “opt-in” versus “opt-out” strategies
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of “opt-in” versus “opt-out” strategies
2005
Overview
Abstract ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of opt-in compared with opt-out recruitment strategies on response rate and selection bias. DesignDouble blind randomised controlled trial. SettingTwo general practices in England. Participants510 patients with angina. InterventionPatients were randomly allocated to an opt-in (asked to actively signal willingness to participate in research) or opt-out (contacted repeatedly unless they signalled unwillingness to participate) approach for recruitment to an observational prognostic study of patients with angina. Main outcome measuresRecruitment rate and clinical characteristics of patients. Results The recruitment rate, defined by clinic attendance, was 38% (96/252) in the opt-in arm and 50% (128/258) in the opt-out arm (P = 0.014). Once an appointment had been made, non-attendance at the clinic was similar (20% opt-in arm v 17% opt-out arm; P = 0.86). Patients in the opt-in arm had fewer risk factors (44% v 60%; P = 0.053), less treatment for angina (69% v 82%; P = 0.010), and less functional impairment (9% v 20%; P = 0.023) than patients in the opt-out arm. Conclusions The opt-in approach to participant recruitment, increasingly required by ethics committees, resulted in lower response rates and a biased sample. We propose that the opt-out approach should be the default recruitment strategy for studies with low risk to participants.
