Literature DB >> 10968382

Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs.

P A Carney1, B M Geller, H Moffett, M Ganger, M Sewell, W E Barlow, N Stalnaker, S H Taplin, C Sisk, V L Ernster, H A Wilkie, B Yankaskas, S P Poplack, N Urban, M M West, R D Rosenberg, S Michael, T D Mercurio, R Ballard-Barbash.   

Abstract

The convenience of fast computers and the Internet have encouraged large collaborative research efforts by allowing transfers of data from multiple sites to a single data repository; however, standards for managing data security are needed to protect the confidentiality of participants. Through Dartmouth Medical School, in 1996-1998, the authors conducted a medicolegal analysis of federal laws, state statutes, and institutional policies in eight states and three different types of health care settings, which are part of a breast cancer surveillance consortium contributing data electronically to a centralized data repository. They learned that a variety of state and federal laws are available to protect confidentiality of professional and lay research participants. The strongest protection available is the Federal Certificate of Confidentiality, which supersedes state statutory protection, has been tested in court, and extends protection from forced disclosure (in litigation) to health care providers as well as patients. This paper describes the careful planning necessary to ensure adequate legal protection and data security, which must include a comprehensive understanding of state and federal protections applicable to medical research. Researchers must also develop rules or guidelines to ensure appropriate collection, use, and sharing of data. Finally, systems for the storage of both paper and electronic records must be as secure as possible.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10968382     DOI: 10.1093/aje/152.4.371

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  37 in total

1.  Radiologists' attitudes and use of mammography audit reports.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Berta Geller; Natalia Vukshich Oster; Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Edward A Sickles; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Who owns the data in clinical trial?

Authors:  Jeffrey M Drazen
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore; Linn A Abraham; Martha S Gerrity; R Edward Hendrick; Stephen H Taplin; William E Barlow; Gary R Cutter; Steven P Poplack; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Andrea Cook; Stephen A Feig; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Security and access of health research data.

Authors:  Willy Susilo; Khin Than Win
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.460

6.  Breast MRI BI-RADS assessments and abnormal interpretation rates by clinical indication in US community practices.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Laura Ichikawa; Michele C Rochelle; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Wendy B DeMartini; Karen J Wernli; Bonnie N Joe; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Educational interventions to improve screening mammography interpretation: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles; Robert Smith; Barbara Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Diana M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Sebastien Haneuse; Deirdre Hill; Matthew G Wallis; Diana Miglioretti
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Andy Bogart; Edward A Sickles; Robert Smith; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  An assessment of the likelihood, frequency, and content of verbal communication between radiologists and women receiving screening and diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Mark Kettler; Andrea J Cook; Berta M Geller; Leah Karliner; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin Aiello Bowles; Diana S Buist; Thomas H Gallagher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Charlotte C Gard; Patricia A Carney; Tracy L Onega; Diana S M Buist; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.