- Jenny Hewison (j.hewison@leeds.ac.uk), professor1,
- Andy Haines, director2
- 1 University of Leeds, Institute of Health Sciences and Public Health Research, Leeds LS2 9LT,
- 2 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London
- Correspondence to: J Hewison
The burden and expense of implementing current research ethics and governance requirements are beginning to be recognised.1 2 However, the ethical requirements may also affect the quality of the primary research. Ethics committees are now insisting that researchers can approach only people who respond positively to letters from their general practitioner or hospital clinician, informing them about an opportunity to take part in research—that is, people who have opted in.3 4 However, the ethical benefits of this approach are not proved and it can lead to low response rates, wasted resources, and research of limited validity.
Opting in and out
Before the changes, properly vetted and approved researchers were allowed to contact potential participants directly after NHS staff had identified and sent information to them about the research. The initial letter from NHS providers stated clearly that if people did not want to be contacted by researchers they should let NHS staff know, so that their contact details would not be passed to the research team—that is, they could opt out. By contrast, many ethics committees now require that researchers approach only people who respond positively to a letter from their general practitioner or hospital clinician informing them about an opportunity to take part in research—that is, potential participants must opt in to being contacted by a researcher.3 4 Under both systems, the researcher then seeks informed consent for participation.
An opt-in system for approaching potential participants is claimed to benefit patients because it ensures that only healthcare providers have access to the information that, say, someone has diabetes unless that individual has explicitly agreed to the information being given …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Ethical considerations
Published 14 February 2012
Re: Diagnosis and management of Raynaud’s phenomenon
Published 14 February 2012
Re: Raised inflammatory markers
Published 14 February 2012
Re: Physical activity for cancer survivors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Published 14 February 2012
Smokefree cars in Wales: Laws are better
Published 14 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (8 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (8 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
How much of a social media profile can doctors have? (7 responses)
Published 23 Jan 2012