Literature DB >> 25506854

The importance of purpose: moving beyond consent in the societal use of personal health information.

David Grande, Nandita Mitra, Anand Shah, Fei Wan, David A Asch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adoption of electronic health record systems has increased the availability of patient-level electronic health information.
OBJECTIVE: To examine public support for secondary uses of electronic health information under different consent arrangements.
DESIGN: National experimental survey to examine perceptions of uses of electronic health information according to patient consent (obtained vs. not obtained), use (research vs. marketing), and framing of the findings (abstract description without results vs. specific results).
SETTING: Nationally representative survey. PARTICIPANTS: 3064 African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white persons (response rate, 65%). MEASUREMENTS: Appropriateness of health information use described in vignettes on a scale of 1 (not at all appropriate) to 10 (very appropriate).
RESULTS: Mean ratings ranged from a low of 3.81 for a marketing use when consent was not obtained and specific results were presented to a high of 7.06 for a research use when consent was obtained and specific results were presented. Participants rated scenarios in which consent was obtained as more appropriate than when consent was not obtained (difference, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.34]; P<0.001). Participants rated scenarios in which the use was marketing as less appropriate than when the use was research (difference, -2.03 [CI, -2.27 to -1.78]; P<0.001). Unconsented research uses were rated as more appropriate than consented marketing uses (5.65 vs. 4.52; difference, 1.13 [CI, 0.87 to 1.39]). LIMITATIONS: Participants rated hypothetical scenarios. Results could be vulnerable to nonresponse bias despite the high response rate.
CONCLUSION: Although approaches to health information sharing emphasize consent, public opinion also emphasizes purpose, which suggests a need to focus more attention on the social value of information use. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Human Genome Research Institute.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25506854      PMCID: PMC4573547          DOI: 10.7326/M14-1118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  22 in total

1.  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

2.  Commercial versus social goals of tracking what doctors do.

Authors:  David Grande; David A Asch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-02-19       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Ownership of medical information.

Authors:  Mark A Hall; Kevin A Schulman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Advancing the framework: use of health data--a report of a working conference of the American Medical Informatics Association.

Authors:  Meryl Bloomrosen; Don Detmer
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-08-28       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Patients, privacy and trust: patients' willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records.

Authors:  Laura J Damschroder; Joy L Pritts; Michael A Neblo; Rosemarie J Kalarickal; John W Creswell; Rodney A Hayward
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2006-10-11       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research.

Authors:  G Corbie-Smith; S B Thomas; M V Williams; S Moody-Ayers
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Public preferences about secondary uses of electronic health information.

Authors:  David Grande; Nandita Mitra; Anand Shah; Fei Wan; David A Asch
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 21.873

8.  Patients' attitudes towards sharing their health information.

Authors:  Richard Whiddett; Inga Hunter; Judith Engelbrecht; Jocelyn Handy
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2005-09-28       Impact factor: 4.046

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.  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

View more
  11 in total

1.  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

2.  Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on the Ethics of Rapid-Learning Health Systems.

Authors:  Reshma Jagsi; Kent A Griffith; Aaron Sabolch; Rochelle Jones; Rebecca Spence; Raymond De Vries; David Grande; Angela R Bradbury
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Privacy and confidentiality in pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  Deven McGraw; Sarah M Greene; Caroline S Miner; Karen L Staman; Mary Jane Welch; Alan Rubel
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Using Digital Technology to Engage and Communicate with Patients: A Survey of Patient Attitudes.

Authors:  Brian P Jenssen; Nandita Mitra; Anand Shah; Fei Wan; David Grande
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Pragmatic Randomized Trials Without Standard Informed Consent?: A National Survey.

Authors:  Rahul K Nayak; David Wendler; Franklin G Miller; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Where Did Informed Consent for Research Come From?

Authors:  Alexander Morgan Capron
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  Mining the social mediome.

Authors:  David A Asch; Daniel J Rader; Raina M Merchant
Journal:  Trends Mol Med       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 11.951

8.  A survey of practices for the use of electronic health records to support research recruitment.

Authors:  Jihad S Obeid; Laura M Beskow; Marie Rape; Ramkiran Gouripeddi; R Anthony Black; James J Cimino; Peter J Embi; Chunhua Weng; Rebecca Marnocha; John B Buse
Journal:  J Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2017-08

9.  Ethical issues in biomedical research using electronic health records: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jan Piasecki; Ewa Walkiewicz-Żarek; Justyna Figas-Skrzypulec; Anna Kordecka; Vilius Dranseika
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2021-06-19

10.  Acquisition, Analysis, and Sharing of Data in 2015 and Beyond: A Survey of the Landscape: A Conference Report From the American Heart Association Data Summit 2015.

Authors:  Elliott M Antman; Emelia J Benjamin; Robert A Harrington; Steven R Houser; Eric D Peterson; Mary Ann Bauman; Nancy Brown; Vincent Bufalino; Robert M Califf; Mark A Creager; Alan Daugherty; David L Demets; Bernard P Dennis; Shahram Ebadollahi; Mariell Jessup; Michael S Lauer; Bernard Lo; Calum A MacRae; Michael V McConnell; Alexa T McCray; Michelle M Mello; Eric Mueller; Jane W Newburger; Sally Okun; Milton Packer; Anthony Philippakis; Peipei Ping; Prad Prasoon; Véronique L Roger; Steve Singer; Robert Temple; Melanie B Turner; Kevin Vigilante; John Warner; Patrick Wayte
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 5.501

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.