Literature DB >> 15886697

Guidelines for confidentiality and cancer registration.

H Storm, D H Brewster, M P Coleman, D Deapen, A Oshima, T Threlfall, E Démaret.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15886697      PMCID: PMC2361788          DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602618

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


× No keyword cloud information.
Sir, Legislation and professional guidance on confidentiality in medical research has increased significantly in the past 10 years (Stiller, 1993; Working Group to the Royal College of Physicians Committee on Ethical Issues in Medicine, 1994; European Parliament, 1995; The Caldicott Committee, 1997; Department of Health, 1999; General Medical Council, 2000; Medical Research Council, 2000; Coker and McKee, 2001; Confidentiality and Security Advisory Group for Scotland, 2002; Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, 2002; Information Commissioner, 2002). Numerous reports have been issued by national and international bodies (Lowrance, 1997; National Health and Medical Research Council, 1999; Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2001; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2001; Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, 2002; Lowrance, 2002; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2002; World Medical Association, 2002a, 2002b; Medical Research Council, 2003; National Institutes of Health, 2004). There is very wide debate over the appropriate balance to be struck between increasing demands for personal autonomy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the need for society to learn from the experience of individual patients, in order to understand how best to control disease – this is also in the interests of individuals. The debate has often focused on the confidentiality of individual health data and the need for informed consent before such data can be used in research (Vandenbroucke, 1992; Vanchieri, 1993; Strobl ; Anderson, 2001; Bastian, 2001; Doll, 2001; Doll and Peto, 2001; Cassell and Young, 2002; Greenberg, 2002; Kulynych and Korn, 2002a, 2002b; Verity and Nicoll, 2002; Coleman ; De Vet ; Ingelfinger and Drazen, 2004; Peto ; Tu ; Robling ). The International Association of Cancer Registries (IACR) published guidance on confidentiality for cancer registries in the British Journal of Cancer in 1992 (Coleman ). Some national and regional cancer registry associations incorporated the IACR guidance in their own guidelines. At the IACR scientific meeting in Tampere, Finland, in 2002, it was decided to update the guidance. A review seemed appropriate after 10 years. European Union (EU) legislation on the protection of personal data had come into force in all member states during this period, and the EU Directive (European Parliament, 1995) has served as a model for national legislation in many countries outside Europe. Rapid developments in web-based communication also motivated revision of the guidance, with a view to appropriate use of this technology, with the attendant risks of breach of confidentiality. The guidance was revised by a small group, endorsed by the IACR Board in 2004, and made available at www.iacr.com.fr/confidentiality2004.pdf. The main changes from the previous version are: a clear description of the principles of confidentiality, as they relate to identifiable data and the registration of cancer; an update of measures to protect data confidentiality; guidance on security for both traditional paper-based systems and modern electronically based data systems; and expanded recommendations designed to ensure confidentiality in data releases for research, including cross-border transfers. The updated IACR guidance on confidentiality in the cancer registry should help the cancer research community continue to provide useful information on the causes, treatment and outcome of cancer in the entire population, while maintaining the highest ethical standards in confidential data collection and research.
  23 in total

1.  Undermining data privacy in health information.

Authors:  R Anderson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-02-24

2.  Data protection legislation: interpretation and barriers to research.

Authors:  J Strobl; E Cave; T Walley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-10-07

3.  The effect of the new federal medical-privacy rule on research.

Authors:  Jennifer Kulynych; David Korn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-01-17       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Ethical approval for health research in central and eastern Europe: an international survey.

Authors:  R Coker; M McKee
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.659

5.  The new federal medical-privacy rule.

Authors:  Jennifer Kulynych; David Korn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-10-10       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Privacy, confidentiality and epidemiology: the Dutch ordeal.

Authors:  J P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 7.196

7.  Cancer registration: its uses in research, and confidentiality in the EC.

Authors:  C A Stiller
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  Impracticability of informed consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network.

Authors:  Jack V Tu; Donald J Willison; Frank L Silver; Jiming Fang; Janice A Richards; Andreas Laupacis; Moira K Kapral
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Confidentiality in the cancer registry.

Authors:  M P Coleman; C S Muir; F Ménégoz
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 10.  Confidentiality and the public interest in medical research--will we ever get it right?

Authors:  Michel P Coleman; Barry G Evans; Geraldine Barrett
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.659

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.