Literature DB >> 16212854

Sharing patient data: competing demands of privacy, trust and research in primary care.

Margaret A Stone1, Sarah A Redsell, Jennifer T Ling, Alastair D Hay.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient privacy may conflict with the advancement of knowledge through data sharing. The data contained in primary care records are uniquely comprehensive. AIM: To explore the knowledge and attitudes of patients and members of the primary healthcare team regarding the sharing of data held in primary care records, with particular reference to data sharing for research and the impact that this may have on trust between patients and health professionals. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study using quota sampled, semi-structured interviews.
SETTING: Five general practices in Leicestershire, UK.
METHOD: Grounded theory and framework methodology were used. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically.
RESULTS: Twenty patients and 15 healthcare professionals and managers were interviewed. Patients had limited knowledge of the type of information held in their general practice records and the ways in which these data are shared, but appeared ready to form preliminary views on issues such as data sharing for audit and disease registration. In this climate of limited awareness, there was no suggestion that concern about data sharing for research adversely affects patient trust or leads patients to withhold relevant information from health professionals in primary care. Interviews carried out with staff suggested a lack of clear practice policies regarding data sharing.
CONCLUSIONS: General practices may need to develop policies on data sharing, bring these to the attention of their patient population and improve patient awareness about the nature of the data contained in their records. Researchers should ensure that patients are adequately informed about the nature of data contained in patient records when seeking consent for data extraction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16212854      PMCID: PMC1562354     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  14 in total

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

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

2.  Consent to cancer registration--an unnecessary burden.

Authors:  I C Paterson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-05-05

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

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

4.  Supporting ethical practice in primary care research: strategies for action.

Authors:  Wendy A Rogers; Lisa Schwartz
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Consent and confidentiality in genetics: whose information is it anyway?

Authors:  A Kent
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Registry research and medical privacy.

Authors:  Julie R Ingelfinger; Jeffrey M Drazen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  The threat to medical-records research.

Authors:  L J Melton
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-11-13       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  What proportion of patients refuse consent to data collection from their records for research purposes?

Authors:  R Baker; C Shiels; K Stevenson; R Fraser; M Stone
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  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

10.  Developing ethical strategies to assist oncologists in seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  R F Brown; P N Butow; D G Butt; A R Moore; M H N Tattersall
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 4.634

View more
  18 in total

1.  Redefining the health information management privacy and security role.

Authors:  Laurie A Rinehart-Thompson; Beth M Hjort; Bonnie S Cassidy
Journal:  Perspect Health Inf Manag       Date:  2009-09-16

2.  Commentary: Conventional medicine is less than perfect.

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

3.  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

4.  Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research.

Authors:  David J Kaufman; Juli Murphy-Bollinger; Joan Scott; Kathy L Hudson
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Selection bias resulting from the requirement for prior consent in observational research: a community cohort of people with ischaemic heart disease.

Authors:  Brian Buckley; Andrew W Murphy; Molly Byrne; Liam Glynn
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2007-05-13       Impact factor: 5.994

6.  Stakeholders' views on data sharing in multicenter studies.

Authors:  Kathleen M Mazor; Allison Richards; Mia Gallagher; David E Arterburn; Marsha A Raebel; W Benjamin Nowell; Jeffrey R Curtis; Andrea R Paolino; Sengwee Toh
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 1.744

7.  Trust, confidentiality, and the acceptability of sharing HIV-related patient data: lessons learned from a mixed methods study about Health Information Exchanges.

Authors:  Andre Maiorana; Wayne T Steward; Kimberly A Koester; Charles Pearson; Starley B Shade; Deepalika Chakravarty; Janet J Myers
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 7.327

8.  Confidentiality of the medical records of HIV-positive patients in the United Kingdom - a medicolegal and ethical perspective.

Authors:  Mike Williams
Journal:  Risk Manag Healthc Policy       Date:  2011-01-26

9.  The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble.

Authors:  Pam Carter; Graeme T Laurie; Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  Enabling genomic-phenomic association discovery without sacrificing anonymity.

Authors:  Raymond D Heatherly; Grigorios Loukides; Joshua C Denny; Jonathan L Haines; Dan M Roden; Bradley A Malin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.