Participant recruitment in sensitive surveys: a comparative trial of ‘opt in’ versus ‘opt out’ approaches

BackgroundAlthough in health services survey research we strive for a high response rate, this must be balanced against the need to recruit participants ethically and considerately, particularly in surveys with a sensitive nature. In survey research there are no established recommendations to guide recruitment approach and an ‘opt-in’ system that requires potential participants to request a copy of the questionnaire by returning a reply slip is frequently adopted. However, in observational research the risk to participants is lower than in clinical research and so some surveys have used an ‘opt-out’ system. The effect of this approach on response and distress is unknown. We sought to investigate this in a survey of end of life care completed by bereaved relatives.MethodsOut of a sample of 1422 bereaved relatives we assigned potential participants to one of two study groups: an ‘opt in’ group (n=711) where a letter of invitation was issued with a reply slip to request a copy of the questionnaire; or an ‘opt out’ group (n=711) where the survey questionnaire was provided alongside the invitation letter. We assessed response and distress between groups.ResultsFrom a sample of 1422, 473 participants returned questionnaires. Response was higher in the ‘opt out’ group than in the ‘opt in’ group (40% compared to 26.4%: χ2 =29.79, p-value<.01), there were no differences in distress or complaints about the survey between groups, and assignment to the ‘opt out’ group was an independent predictor of response (OR=1.84, 95% CI: 1.45-2.34). Moreover, the ‘opt in’ group were more likely to decline to participate (χ2=28.60, p-value<.01) and there was a difference in the pattern of questionnaire responses between study groups.ConclusionGiven that the ‘opt out’ method of recruitment is associated with a higher response than the ‘opt in’ method, seems to have no impact on complaints or distress about the survey, and there are differences in the patterns of responses between groups, the ‘opt out’ method could be recommended as the most efficient way to recruit into surveys, even in those with a sensitive nature.

[1]  J. Sitzia,et al.  Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. , 2003, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[2]  Linda Irvine,et al.  Bmc Medical Research Methodology Open Access Strategies for Achieving a High Response Rate in a Home Interview Survey , 2009 .

[3]  E. Gilpin,et al.  Consequences of declining survey response rates for smoking prevalence estimates. , 2004, American journal of preventive medicine.

[4]  D. Halpin,et al.  Reconciling informed consent and ‘do no harm’: ethical challenges in palliative-care research and practice in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , 2010, Palliative medicine.

[5]  M. Clarke,et al.  questionnaires: systematic review Increasing response rates to postal , 2007 .

[6]  S. Galea,et al.  Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. , 2007, Annals of epidemiology.

[7]  C. Junghans,et al.  Consent bias in research: how to avoid it , 2007, Heart.

[8]  Brooks C. Holtom,et al.  Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research , 2008 .

[9]  M. Clarke,et al.  Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  M. Mcmurdo,et al.  Overcoming barriers to recruitment in health research: Concerns of potential participants need to be dealt with , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  S. Duke,et al.  Review: A narrative review of the published ethical debates in palliative care research and an assessment of their adequacy to inform research governance , 2010, Palliative medicine.

[12]  Simon Wessely,et al.  Consent, confidentiality, and the Data Protection Act , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Andy Haines,et al.  Overcoming barriers to recruitment in health research , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  K. Bennett,et al.  Opt-out as an acceptable method of obtaining consent in medical research: a short report , 2011, BMC medical research methodology.

[15]  K. French.  Methodological considerations in hospital patient opinion surveys. , 2003, International journal of nursing studies.

[16]  Natalie Shlomo,et al.  Estimation of an indicator of the representativeness of survey response , 2012 .

[17]  C. Steeh.  Trends in Nonresponse Rates, 1952–1979 , 1981 .

[18]  T. Walley,et al.  Using personal health information in medical research , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  T. Louis,et al.  Do Patient Consent Procedures Affect Participation Rates in Health Services Research? , 2002, Medical care.

[20]  Melissa C Brouwers,et al.  Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  J. Ellershaw,et al.  Care of the dying patient: the last hours or days of life. , 2003, BMJ.

[22]  D. Clark,et al.  Carer satisfaction with end-of-life care in Powys, Wales: a cross-sectional survey. , 2004, Health & social care in the community.

[23]  V. Entwistle,et al.  The requirement for prior consent to participate on survey response rates: a population-based survey in Grampian , 2003, BMC health services research.

[24]  P. Croft,et al.  A method to determine if consenters to population surveys are representative of the target study population. , 2005, Journal of public health.

[25]  Gene Feder,et al.  Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of “opt-in” versus “opt-out” strategies , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[26]  H. Genn.  Health Surveys in Practice and in Potential (Book). , 1986 .