Literature DB >> 15345123

Certificates of confidentiality in research: rationale and usage.

Zachary N Cooper1, Robert M Nelson, Lainie Friedman Ross.   

Abstract

Certificates of confidentiality (COCs) are a tool to protect researchers from being compelled to release identifying information about their subjects. Whereas institutional review board (IRB) review and informed consent procedures are mandatory tools to protect human subjects, COCs are voluntary. There are limited data about who procures COCs and why, and whether they are useful. Three Institutes of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided data on 114 research projects that had received COCs. Eighty-three researchers had procured a single COC and 11 researchers had procured 31 COCs. One hundred and four (91%) of the COCs were obtained by researchers at academic sites, and 17 institutions collectively accounted for 82 COCs. The most commonly cited sources of information about COCs came from colleagues (n = 18, 35%) and previous experience (n = 17, 33%). The most common reasons for procuring a COC were that the research involved genetics (n = 28, 54%), the research could lead to social stigmatization or discrimination (n = 22, 42%), or the research could damage an individual's financial standing, employability, or reputation (n = 21, 40%). These findings show that COCs are often congregated within institutions and by particular individuals. This may be because others are unaware of COCs or because others do not believe they are necessary or useful.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15345123     DOI: 10.1089/gte.2004.8.214

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Test        ISSN: 1090-6576


  4 in total

1.  Certificates of Confidentiality: Protecting Human Subject Research Data in Law and Practice.

Authors:  Leslie E Wolf; Mayank J Patel; Brett A Williams Tarver; Jeffrey L Austin; Lauren A Dame; Laura M Beskow
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

2.  Nine key functions for a human subjects protection program for community-engaged research: points to consider.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Allan Loup; Robert M Nelson; Jeffrey R Botkin; Rhonda Kost; George R Smith; Sarah Gehlert
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 3.  Privacy and confidentiality in emergency medicine: obligations and challenges.

Authors:  Joel Martin Geiderman; John C Moskop; Arthur R Derse
Journal:  Emerg Med Clin North Am       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.264

4.  Institutional review boards' use and understanding of certificates of confidentiality.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Devon K Check; Emily E Namey; Lauren A Dame; Li Lin; Alexandra Cooper; Kevin P Weinfurt; Leslie E Wolf
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.