Bias in obtaining broad consent in a German general practice? - Preliminary results from a cross-sectional study.

IF 1.1 Q4 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Konstantin Moser, Felix Bauch, Manon Richter, Christine Brütting, Alexander Bauer, Shlomo Vinker, Tobias Deutsch, Thomas Frese
{"title":"Bias in obtaining broad consent in a German general practice? - Preliminary results from a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Konstantin Moser, Felix Bauch, Manon Richter, Christine Brütting, Alexander Bauer, Shlomo Vinker, Tobias Deutsch, Thomas Frese","doi":"10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1957_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The growing importance of collecting Broad Consent (BC) for research utilizing electronic health records in Germany has brought attention to the need for a deeper understanding of potential selection bias in the process. Since 2020, the BeoNet-Halle outpatient database has been collecting anonymous and pseudonymous patient data from primary care and specialty practices throughout Germany, with the practice being an integral part of this data collection effort. The primary objective of the pilot study is to explore potential socioeconomic discrepancies between patients who provided BC and the general practice population.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This is a single-center, cross-sectional study. The study was performed with patients from one Medical Care Center including eight GPs. We categorized patients with at least one interaction with a general practitioner from March 2021 to January 2023 into two sets: patients who approved BC versus a randomly chosen representative sample (RS) of non-BC inquirers. We mailed a sociodemographic survey to both groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 561 patients were analyzed, with the BC group responding more actively (60.7%) than the RS group (29.7%). Age and gender were similar between the BC group and RS group. Being widowed, divorced, or unmarried and being neither open nor hostile toward research was associated with an increased likelihood of giving consent. Analysis of personality traits did not show any impact on giving consent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, this study outlines that there is some bias between BC and RS. Possible associations in BC decisions that offer insights into complex decisions to participate in medical research are marital status, immigrant background, income, and age. Findings emphasize the potential of BC for outpatient research, warranting further investigation to optimize its application in the general practice setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":15856,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11504768/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1957_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The growing importance of collecting Broad Consent (BC) for research utilizing electronic health records in Germany has brought attention to the need for a deeper understanding of potential selection bias in the process. Since 2020, the BeoNet-Halle outpatient database has been collecting anonymous and pseudonymous patient data from primary care and specialty practices throughout Germany, with the practice being an integral part of this data collection effort. The primary objective of the pilot study is to explore potential socioeconomic discrepancies between patients who provided BC and the general practice population.

Method: This is a single-center, cross-sectional study. The study was performed with patients from one Medical Care Center including eight GPs. We categorized patients with at least one interaction with a general practitioner from March 2021 to January 2023 into two sets: patients who approved BC versus a randomly chosen representative sample (RS) of non-BC inquirers. We mailed a sociodemographic survey to both groups.

Results: A total of 561 patients were analyzed, with the BC group responding more actively (60.7%) than the RS group (29.7%). Age and gender were similar between the BC group and RS group. Being widowed, divorced, or unmarried and being neither open nor hostile toward research was associated with an increased likelihood of giving consent. Analysis of personality traits did not show any impact on giving consent.

Conclusions: Overall, this study outlines that there is some bias between BC and RS. Possible associations in BC decisions that offer insights into complex decisions to participate in medical research are marital status, immigrant background, income, and age. Findings emphasize the potential of BC for outpatient research, warranting further investigation to optimize its application in the general practice setting.

德国一家全科诊所在获得广泛同意时存在偏差?- 一项横断面研究的初步结果。
背景:在德国,收集广泛同意(Broad Consent,BC)用于利用电子健康记录进行研究的重要性与日俱增,这使人们开始关注深入了解这一过程中潜在选择偏差的必要性。自 2020 年以来,BeoNet-Halle 门诊病人数据库一直在从全德国的初级保健和专科诊所收集匿名和假名病人数据,而诊所是这一数据收集工作不可分割的一部分。这项试点研究的主要目的是探索提供 BC 的患者与普通医生人群之间潜在的社会经济差异:这是一项单中心横断面研究。研究对象为一家医疗保健中心的患者,其中包括 8 名全科医生。我们将 2021 年 3 月至 2023 年 1 月期间至少与全科医生有过一次互动的患者分为两组:批准 BC 的患者与随机选择的非 BC 咨询者代表样本 (RS)。我们向这两组患者邮寄了一份社会人口调查表:共对 561 名患者进行了分析,BC 组(60.7%)比 RS 组(29.7%)回复更积极。BC 组和 RS 组的年龄和性别相似。丧偶、离异或未婚以及对研究既不开放也不敌视的人同意研究的可能性较高。对人格特质的分析并未显示出对同意研究的影响:总体而言,本研究概述了 BC 与 RS 之间存在的一些偏差。婚姻状况、移民背景、收入和年龄可能与 BC 决定有关,这有助于深入了解参与医学研究的复杂决定。研究结果强调了BC在门诊病人研究中的潜力,值得进一步调查,以优化其在全科环境中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
7.10%
发文量
884
审稿时长
40 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信