Dataset Information

Factors associated with sharing e-mail information and mental health survey participation in large population cohorts.

ABSTRACT:

Background

People who opt to participate in scientific studies tend to be healthier, wealthier and more educated than the broader population. Although selection bias does not always pose a problem for analysing the relationships between exposures and diseases or other outcomes, it can lead to biased effect size estimates. Biased estimates may weaken the utility of genetic findings because the goal is often to make inferences in a new sample (such as in polygenic risk score analysis).

Methods

We used data from UK Biobank, Generation Scotland and Partners Biobank and conducted phenotypic and genome-wide association analyses on two phenotypes that reflected mental health data availability: (i) whether participants were contactable by e-mail for follow-up; and (ii) whether participants responded to follow-up surveys of mental health.

Results

In UK Biobank, we identified nine genetic loci associated (P <5 × 10-8) with e-mail contact and 25 loci associated with mental health survey completion. Both phenotypes were positively genetically correlated with higher educational attainment and better health and negatively genetically correlated with psychological distress and schizophrenia. One single nucleotide polymorphism association replicated along with the overall direction of effect of all association results.

Conclusions

Re-contact availability and follow-up participation can act as further genetic filters for data on mental health phenotypes.

SUBMITTER: Adams MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7266553 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors associated with sharing e-mail information and mental health survey participation in large population cohorts.

Adams Mark J MJ Hill W David WD Howard David M DM Dashti Hassan S HS Davis Katrina A S KAS Campbell Archie A Clarke Toni-Kim TK Deary Ian J IJ Hayward Caroline C Porteous David D Hotopf Matthew M McIntosh Andrew M AM

International journal of epidemiology 20200401 2

<h4>Background</h4>People who opt to participate in scientific studies tend to be healthier, wealthier and more educated than the broader population. Although selection bias does not always pose a problem for analysing the relationships between exposures and diseases or other outcomes, it can lead to biased effect size estimates. Biased estimates may weaken the utility of genetic findings because the goal is often to make inferences in a new sample (such as in polygenic risk score analysis).<h4> ...[more]

PMID: 31263887

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical trial diversity is critical to advance health and health equity. Research addressing the discrepancy between goals of achieving clinical trial diversity and realities of study enrollment remains underdeveloped.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine the association between race/ethnicity and clinical trial invitation, participation, knowledge, and sources of influence on clinical trial participation.Design and participantsA cross-sectional, observational study using nationally representative data from 3689 US adults (≥ 18 years of age) who responded to the Health Information National Trends Survey fielded from February 24 to June 15, 2020.Main measuresPrimary outcomes included clinical trial invitation, participation, knowledge, and sources of influence on participation. The independent variable of interest is self-reported race/ethnicity.Key resultsRespondents identifying as non-Hispanic Black (relative to non-Hispanic White) had higher odds of being invited into a clinical trial (adjusted odds ratio: 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1, 3.7), but no differences in odds of participation were observed by race/ethnicity. Respondents from all races/ethnicities reported that personal healthcare providers were the most trusted source of clinical trial information. Hispanic (marginal effect (ME): - 0.09; 95% CI: - 0.16, - 0.03), non-Hispanic Black (ME: - 0.11; 95% CI: - 0.18, - 0.04), and non-Hispanic other (ME: - 0.11; 95% CI: - 0.19, - 0.02) respondents had lower odds than non-Hispanic White respondents of saying they would be influenced "a lot" by their doctor encouraging participation. Non-Hispanic Black respondents had significantly lower odds (relative to non-Hispanic White) of indicating family encouragement would influence their clinical trial participation decision "a lot" (ME: - 0.09; 95%: CI: - 0.14, - 0.03).ConclusionWhile personal healthcare providers were trusted sources of information, racial/ethnic minority populations noted lower odds of clinical trial participation influence from providers and family. Thus, it is imperative for the healthcare, government, and industry organizations to build trust in medicine and science.

Project description:BackgroundGenomic services are increasingly accessible to young adults starting their independent lives with responsibility for their self-care, yet their attitudes to sharing genomic information remain under-researched. This study explored attitudes of university-based 18-25 year-olds towards sharing personal whole-genome sequencing (WGS) information with relatives.MethodsWe surveyed 112 young adults. Hypotheses were tested regarding the relationships between their preferences for sharing personal WGS information with relatives and factors including their gender, previous genetics-specific education, general educational attainment level and current study in a science, technology, engineering, maths or medicine (STEMM) field.ResultsMost participants were positive about both their intention to share their WGS results with their parents and siblings, and their desire to know their relatives' results. Being female and having a university-level genetics education were consistently positively correlated with intention to share one's results with parents and with siblings as well as the desire to know relatives' results. Additionally, females who had undertaken a genetics course at university had significantly greater intentions and desires than females who had not. Lower general educational attainment was related to a lower intention to share with siblings. Participants who were in a STEMM field had a greater desire to know their relatives' results.ConclusionsParticipants' gender and prior genetics education were consistently related to their intentions to share WGS results with relatives and their desire to know relatives' results. Educational attainment was found to be positively correlated with intention to share with siblings. Being in a STEMM field was related to participants' desire to know their relatives' results. These findings indicate that gender and genetics education are particularly important influencers on young adults' stated sharing preferences. More research is required to examine the dependent variables studied to further understand their influence on attitudes to sharing WGS results. These findings are particularly interesting for information provision and support before genomic sequencing and post-results to improve the outcomes for individuals and their relatives.

Project description:BackgroundSparse relative effectiveness evidence is a frequent problem in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Where evidence directly pertaining to the decision problem is sparse, it may be feasible to expand the evidence-base to include studies that relate to the decision problem only indirectly: for instance, when there is no evidence on a comparator, evidence on other treatments of the same molecular class could be used; similarly, a decision on children may borrow-strength from evidence on adults. Usually, in HTA, such indirect evidence is either included by ignoring any differences ('lumping') or not included at all ('splitting'). However, a range of more sophisticated methods exists, primarily in the biostatistics literature. The objective of this study is to identify and classify the breadth of the available information-sharing methods.MethodsForwards and backwards citation-mining techniques were used on a set of seminal papers on the topic of information-sharing. Papers were included if they specified (network) meta-analytic methods for combining information from distinct populations, interventions, outcomes or study-designs.ResultsOverall, 89 papers were included. A plethora of evidence synthesis methods have been used for information-sharing. Most papers (n=79) described methods that shared information on relative treatment effects. Amongst these, there was a strong emphasis on methods for information-sharing across multiple outcomes (n=42) and treatments (n=25), with fewer papers focusing on study-designs (n=23) or populations (n=8). We categorise and discuss the methods under four 'core' relationships of information-sharing: functional, exchangeability-based, prior-based and multivariate relationships, and explain the assumptions made within each of these core approaches.ConclusionsThis study highlights the range of information-sharing methods available. These methods often impose more moderate assumptions than lumping or splitting. Hence, the degree of information-sharing that they impose could potentially be considered more appropriate. Our identification of four 'core' methods of information-sharing allows for an improved understanding of the assumptions underpinning the different methods. Further research is required to understand how the methods differ in terms of the strength of sharing they impose and the implications of this for health care decisions.

Dataset Information

Factors associated with sharing e-mail information and mental health survey participation in large population cohorts.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Factors associated with sharing e-mail information and mental health survey participation in large population cohorts.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets