Purpose: Requiring parental consent may result in sampling biases that confound scientific conclusions and stifle the representation of children most at risk for adverse outcomes. This study aims to investigate whether active parental consent, compared with passive parental consent, creates a bias in response rate, demographic makeup, and adverse outcomes in adolescent samples.
Methods: A meta-analysis was performed on peer-reviewed articles and unpublished dissertations from 1975 to 2016 in five computerized databases ERIC, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed and ProQuest. Quantitative studies were retained if they included the following keywords: active consent (or informed consent or parental consent), passive consent (or waiver of consent), risk behavior, adolescen*.
Results: Fifteen studies were identified with a total number of 104,074 children. Results showed (1) response rates were significantly lower for studies using active consent procedure than those using passive consent procedure (Z = 3.05, p = .002); (2) more females, younger participants, and less African-Americans were included in studies using active consent procedures than studies using passive procedures (Z = -2.73, p = .006; Z = -12.06, p < .00001; Z = 2.19, p = .03, respectively); (3) studies with passive consent procedures showed higher rates of self-reported substance use than studies using active consent procedures (Z = 3.07, p = .002).
Conclusions: Requiring active parental consent can lead to a systematic bias in the sample where the population under study is misrepresented. Institutional review board committees should collaborate with researchers to find solutions that protect minors without silencing the voice of high-risk youth in the literature.
Keywords: Active consent; Adolescents; Meta-analysis; Parental consent; Passive consent; Risk behaviors.
Copyright © 2017 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
MacNeill L, MacNeill AL, Doucet S, Luke A, Goudreau A. MacNeill L, et al. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2024 Jul;19(3):124-134. doi: 10.1177/15562646241253953. Epub 2024 May 15. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2024. PMID: 38748564 Free PMC article. Review.
Tigges BB. Tigges BB. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2003;35(3):283-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2003.00283.x. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2003. PMID: 14562498 Review.
White VM, Hill DJ, Effendi Y. White VM, et al. Eval Rev. 2004 Jun;28(3):246-60. doi: 10.1177/0193841X03259549. Eval Rev. 2004. PMID: 15130183
Kuehn MB, Hotho D, Prunty M. Kuehn MB, et al. Creat Nurs. 2016 Feb 1;22(1):51-55. doi: 10.1891/1078-4535.22.1.51. Creat Nurs. 2016. PMID: 30188306
Smith DC, Boel-Studt S, Cleeland L. Smith DC, et al. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Oct;37(3):298-306. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2009.03.007. Epub 2009 Apr 2. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009. PMID: 19345054 Review.
Servais J, Vanhoutte B, Maddy H, Godin I. Servais J, et al. Int J Transgend Health. 2024 Mar 13;25(3):419-438. doi: 10.1080/26895269.2024.2323524. eCollection 2024. Int J Transgend Health. 2024. PMID: 39055638 Review.
MacNeill L, MacNeill AL, Doucet S, Luke A, Goudreau A. MacNeill L, et al. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2024 Jul;19(3):124-134. doi: 10.1177/15562646241253953. Epub 2024 May 15. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2024. PMID: 38748564 Free PMC article. Review.
Benner AD, Hou Y, Jackson KM. Benner AD, et al. J Early Adolesc. 2020 Feb;40(2):249-272. doi: 10.1177/0272431619833489. Epub 2019 Mar 11. J Early Adolesc. 2020. PMID: 38343652 Free PMC article.
Badger K, Baez Caraballo P, Gibbs A, Messina L, Halpern M, Amesty S. Badger K, et al. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024 Jan 8;4(1):e0002711. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002711. eCollection 2024. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38190375 Free PMC article.
Bidonde J, Meneses-Echavez JF, Hafstad E, Brunborg GS, Bang L. Bidonde J, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Nov 16;23(1):270. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02096-z. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023. PMID: 37974067 Free PMC article.