Literature DB >> 12586673

Patients' consent preferences for research uses of information in electronic medical records: interview and survey data.

Donald J Willison1, Karim Keshavjee, Kalpana Nair, Charlie Goldsmith, Anne M Holbrook.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess patients' preferred method of consent for the use of information from electronic medical records for research.
DESIGN: Interviews and a structured survey of patients in practices with electronic medical records.
SETTING: Family practices in southern Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 123 patients: 17 were interviewed and 106 completed a survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' opinions and concerns on use of information from their medical records for research and their preferences for method of consent.
RESULTS: Most interviewees were willing to allow the use of their information for research purposes, although the majority preferred that consent was sought first. The seeking of consent was considered an important element of respect for the individual. Most interviewees made little distinction between identifiable and anonymised data. Research sponsored by private insurance firms generated the greatest concern, and research sponsored by foundation the least. Sponsorship by drug companies evoked negative responses during interview and positive responses in the survey.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients are willing to allow information from their medical records to be used for research, but most prefer to be asked for consent either verbally or in writing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12586673      PMCID: PMC148897          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7385.373

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  4 in total

1.  Public standards and patients' control: how to keep electronic medical records accessible but private.

Authors:  K D Mandl; P Szolovits; I S Kohane
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-02-03

2.  The privacy paradox: laying Orwell's ghost to rest.

Authors:  R E Upshur; B Morin; V Goel
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-08-07       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980-97.

Authors:  E Mitchell; F Sullivan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-02-03

4.  Challenges to human subject protections in US medical research.

Authors:  B Woodward
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-11-24       Impact factor: 56.272

  4 in total
  57 in total

1.  Difficulties in giving fully informed consent.

Authors:  Ruth G Jepson; Roma Robertson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-05-10

2.  The confidentiality of patient and physician information in pharmacy prescription records.

Authors:  Dick E Zoutman; B Douglas Ford; Assil R Bassili
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-03-02       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Public opinions about participating in health research.

Authors:  Kay Teschke; Suhail Marino; Rong Chu; Joseph K C Tsui; M Anne Harris; Stephen A Marion
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr

4.  Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies.

Authors:  Cornelia Junghans; Gene Feder; Harry Hemingway; Adam Timmis; Melvyn Jones
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-09-12

5.  Does an interactive trust-enhanced electronic consent improve patient experiences when asked to share their health records for research? A randomized trial.

Authors:  Christopher A Harle; Elizabeth H Golembiewski; Kiarash P Rahmanian; Babette Brumback; Janice L Krieger; Kenneth W Goodman; Arch G Mainous; Ray E Moseley
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Extracting information from hospital records: what patients think about consent.

Authors:  Bruce Campbell; Helen Thomson; Jessica Slater; Colin Coward; Katrina Wyatt; Kieran Sweeney
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2007-12

7.  Security and access of health research data.

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

8.  Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: what is the opinion of the Canadian public?

Authors:  Donald J Willison; Lisa Schwartz; Julia Abelson; Cathy Charles; Marilyn Swinton; David Northrup; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  Pharmaceutical use and outcomes: always a need for a sober second look.

Authors:  Steve Morgan; Brenda Macgibbon
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2007-08

10.  Patient informed governance of distributed research networks: results and discussion from six patient focus groups.

Authors:  Laura A Mamo; Dennis K Browe; Holly C Logan; Katherine K Kim
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.