Literature DB >> 14872086

Public attitudes towards the use of primary care patient record data in medical research without consent: a qualitative study.

M R Robling1, K Hood, H Houston, R Pill, J Fay, H M Evans.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Recent legislative changes within the United Kingdom have stimulated professional debate about access to patient data within research. However, there is currently little awareness of public views about such research. The authors sought to explore attitudes of the public, and their lay representatives, towards the use of primary care medical record data for research when patient consent was not being sought.
METHODS: 49 members of the public and four non-medical members of local community health councils in South Wales, UK gave their views on the value and acceptability of three current research scenarios, each describing access to data without patient consent.
RESULTS: Among focus group participants, awareness of research in primary care was low, and the appropriateness of general practitioners as researchers was questioned. There was general support for research but also concerns expressed about data collection without consent. These included lack of respect and patient control over the process. Unauthorised access to data by external agencies was a common fear. Current data collection practices, including population based disease registers elicited much anxiety. The key informants were equally critical of the scenarios and generally less accepting.
CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study has highlighted a number of areas of public concern when medical records are accessed for research without patient consent. Public acceptability regarding the use of medical records in research cannot simply be assumed. Further work is required to determine how widespread such views are and to inform those advising on confidentiality issues.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14872086      PMCID: PMC1757117          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2003.005157

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  21 in total

1.  Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit.

Authors:  R Al-Shahi; C Warlow
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-10-28

2.  Consent, confidentiality, and the threat to public health surveillance.

Authors:  Chris Verity; Angus Nicoll
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-05-18

3.  Common sense and common consent in communicable disease surveillance.

Authors:  L Turnberg
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  BMA's patient confidentiality rules are deemed unlawful.

Authors:  C Dyer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-11-06

5.  The importance of conducting and reporting pilot studies: the example of the Scottish Births Survey.

Authors:  E R Van Teijlingen; A M Rennie; V Hundley; W Graham
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.187

6.  Informed consent in medical research. Journals should not publish research to which patients have not given fully informed consent--with three exceptions.

Authors:  L Doyal
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-04-12

7.  Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups.

Authors:  J Kitzinger
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-07-29

8.  Use of personal medical records for research purposes.

Authors:  N Wald; M Law; T Meade; G Miller; E Alberman; J Dickinson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-11-26

9.  The Data Protection Act (1998): implications for health researchers.

Authors:  S A Redsell; F M Cheater
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.187

10.  Some limits of informed consent.

Authors:  O O'Neill
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.903

View more
  52 in total

1.  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

2.  Using personal health information in medical research.

Authors:  Tom Walley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-01-21

3.  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

4.  Legal and ethical considerations in processing patient-identifiable data without patient consent: lessons learnt from developing a disease register.

Authors:  Charlotte L Haynes; Gary A Cook; Michael A Jones
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Consent bias in research: how to avoid it.

Authors:  Cornelia Junghans; Melvyn Jones
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 5.994

6.  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

7.  Commentary: Conventional medicine is less than perfect.

Authors:  Brian S Buckley
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Ethical concerns around use of artificial intelligence in health care research from the perspective of patients with meningioma, caregivers and health care providers: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Melissa D McCradden; Ami Baba; Ashirbani Saha; Sidra Ahmad; Kanwar Boparai; Pantea Fadaiefard; Michael D Cusimano
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2020-02-18

9.  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

10.  Consent for use of personal information for health research: do people with potentially stigmatizing health conditions and the general public differ in their opinions?

Authors:  Donald J Willison; Valerie Steeves; Cathy Charles; Lisa Schwartz; Jennifer Ranford; Gina Agarwal; Ji Cheng; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2009-07-24       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.