Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dunn, K. M.
Right arrow Articles by Jinks, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dunn, K. M.
Right arrow Articles by Jinks, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Am J Epidemiol 2004; 159:1087-1094.
Copyright © 2004 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health


PRACTICE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY

Patterns of Consent in Epidemiologic Research: Evidence from Over 25,000 Responders

Kate M. Dunn , Kelvin Jordan, Rosie J. Lacey, Mark Shapley and Clare Jinks

From the Primary Care Sciences Research Centre, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.

Ethical guidelines in the United Kingdom require written consent from participants in epidemiologic studies for follow-up or review of medical records. This may cause bias in samples used for follow-up or medical record review. The authors analyzed data from seven general population surveys conducted in the United Kingdom (1996–2002), to which over 25,000 people responded. Associations of age, gender, and symptom under investigation with consent to follow-up and consent to review of medical records were examined. Consent to follow-up was approximately 75–95% among survey responders under age 50 years but fell among older people, particularly females. Consent to follow-up was also higher among responders who had the symptom under investigation (pooled odds ratio = 1.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.36, 1.92). Consent to review of medical records followed a similar pattern. Patterns of consent were relatively consistent and represented a high proportion of responders. Males, younger people, and subjects reporting the symptom under investigation were more likely to give consent, and these groups may be overrepresented in follow-up samples or reviews of medical records. Although consent is high among responders, the additive effect of nonresponse and nonconsent can substantially reduce sample size and should be taken into account in epidemiologic study planning.

bias (epidemiology); consent forms; epidemiologic methods; informed consent; longitudinal studies; medical records; selection bias


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
K. M. Dunn
Invited Commentary: Topical Threats to Epidemiology
Am. J. Epidemiol., January 1, 2008; 167(1): 20 - 22.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
A R. Tate, L. Calderwood, C. Dezateux, H. Joshi, and The Millennium Cohort Study Child Health Group
Mother's consent to linkage of survey data with her child's birth records in a multi-ethnic national cohort study
Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2006; 35(2): 294 - 298.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
T. Harris, D. G Cook, C. Victor, C. Beighton, S. DeWilde, and I. Carey
Linking questionnaires to primary care records: factors affecting consent in older people
J. Epidemiol. Community Health, April 1, 2005; 59(4): 336 - 338.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
L. Tooth, R. Ware, C. Bain, D. M. Purdie, and A. Dobson
Quality of Reporting of Observational Longitudinal Research
Am. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2005; 161(3): 280 - 288.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.