title: Direct access to potential research participants for a cohort study using a confidentiality waiver included in UK National Health Service legal statutes.
abstract: To describe our experience of using a confidentiality waiver (Section 251) in the National Health Service (NHS) Act to identify and recruit potential research participants to a cohort study and consider its use in a wider research context.
  
  
  
  Methodological discussion.
  
  
  
  NHS Trusts in England.
  
  
  
  We established a research recruitment process with quality health (QH), administrators of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey, after an amendment to a Section 251 approval (reference number ECC-8-05d-2011). NHS Trusts agreeing to implement the process were requested to send the details of 16-24-year-olds, identified by a relevant ICD-10 code indicating a cancer diagnosis within a specified time period to QH. QH sent study information and a consent-to-be-contacted form which allowed QH to send details to BRIGHTLIGHT, for BRIGHTLIGHT to contact the treating team confirming eligibility and for an interviewer from Ipsos MORI to contact them. Written consent was to be obtained at interview.
  
  
  
  The method was implemented in 98 trusts; 75 supplied patient details. QH sent information to 441 young people, of whom 64 (15%) responded. Of these, 23 had already consented to participate. Adverse events were reported by 6 (1%) invitees: 4 were distressed because they did not have cancer, their details being submitted to QH due to incorrect hospital coding, and 1 young person was distressed about their diagnosis and requested no further contact and 1 young person found out they had cancer from the invitation.
  
  
  
  Application of Section 251 of the NHS Act (2006) to directly approach participants can facilitate recruitment to research projects where routinely collected NHS data are available to select eligible patients. The benefits of this method are that it requires fewer resources to recruit across multiple sites, and is quicker. Further information on the impact on bias and adverse event profile are required.
authors.affiliation: Cancer Division, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
authors.forename: Rachel M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Taylor
authors.affiliation: Cancer Division, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
authors.forename: Lorna A
authors.initials: LA
authors.lastname: Fern
authors.affiliation: Cancer Division, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
authors.forename: Natasha
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Aslam
authors.affiliation: Cancer Division, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
authors.forename: Jeremy S
authors.initials: JS
authors.lastname: Whelan
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D015331:Cohort Studies; D003219:Confidentiality / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D016208:Databases, Factual; D004608:Eligibility Determination; D005260:Female; D006302:Health Services Research; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009369:Neoplasms; D057240:Patient Preference; D018579:Patient Selection; D013222:State Medicine / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006113:United Kingdom; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: Alternative recruitment methods; BRIGHTLIGHT; Trial recruitment