Literature DB >> 26081642

Patient/family views on data sharing in rare diseases: study in the European LeukoTreat project.

Sylviane Darquy1, Grégoire Moutel2, Anne-Sophie Lapointe1, Diane D'Audiffret1, Julie Champagnat1, Samia Guerroui3, Marie-Louise Vendeville4, Odile Boespflug-Tanguy4,5, Nathalie Duchange1.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore patient and family views on the sharing of their medical data in the context of compiling a European leukodystrophies database. A survey questionnaire was delivered with help from referral centers and the European Leukodystrophies Association, and the questionnaires returned were both quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. This study found that patients/families were strongly in favor of participating. Patients/families hold great hope and trust in the development of this type of research. They have a strong need for information and transparency on database governance, the conditions framing access to data, all research conducted, partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry, and they also need access to results. Our findings bring ethics-driven arguments for a process combining initial broad consent with ongoing information. On both, we propose key item-deliverables to database participants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26081642      PMCID: PMC4755367          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  31 in total

1.  Gene banks and blanket consent.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  Maintaining privacy and the health of the public. Should not be seen as in opposition.

Authors:  J P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-05-02

3.  Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus.

Authors:  Zubin Master; Erin Nelson; Blake Murdoch; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 28.547

4.  Optimizing treatments in rare diseases: will our evidence come from registry data?

Authors:  Antonio M Almeida
Journal:  Leuk Res       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 3.156

5.  Public health and the law. Informed consent and blanket consent forms.

Authors:  W J Curran
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1971-06       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Ethical aspects of participation in the database of genotypes and phenotypes of the National Center for Biotechnology Information: the Cancer and Leukemia Group B Experience.

Authors:  Jeffrey Peppercorn; Iuliana Shapira; Teressa Deshields; Deanna Kroetz; Paula Friedman; Patricia Spears; Deborah E Collyar; Lawrence N Shulman; Lynn Dressler; Monica M Bertagnolli
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 7.  Genes involved in leukodystrophies: a glance at glial functions.

Authors:  Odile Boespflug-Tanguy; Pierre Labauge; Anne Fogli; Catherine Vaurs-Barriere
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 5.081

8.  Clinical research for rare disease: opportunities, challenges, and solutions.

Authors:  Robert C Griggs; Mark Batshaw; Mary Dunkle; Rashmi Gopal-Srivastava; Edward Kaye; Jeffrey Krischer; Tan Nguyen; Kathleen Paulus; Peter A Merkel
Journal:  Mol Genet Metab       Date:  2008-11-13       Impact factor: 4.797

9.  Informed consent in the genomics era.

Authors:  Deborah Mascalzoni; Andrew Hicks; Peter Pramstaller; Matthias Wjst
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Patient and public views on electronic health records and their uses in the United kingdom: cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Serena A Luchenski; Julie E Reed; Cicely Marston; Chrysanthi Papoutsi; Azeem Majeed; Derek Bell
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  15 in total

1.  Commentary: data sharing in South East Asia.

Authors:  Louis Grue; Sophia Siddiqui; Direk Limmathurotsakul; Armaji Kamaludi; Muhammad Karyana; Chuen-Yen Lau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-10-10

2.  Empirically-derived synthetic populations to mitigate small sample sizes.

Authors:  Erin E Fowler; Anders Berglund; Michael J Schell; Thomas A Sellers; Steven Eschrich; John Heine
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  Share and protect our health data: an evidence based approach to rare disease patients' perspectives on data sharing and data protection - quantitative survey and recommendations.

Authors:  Sandra Courbier; Rebecca Dimond; Virginie Bros-Facer
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2019-07-12       Impact factor: 4.123

4.  A systematic literature review of health consumer attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: a focus on privacy, trust, and transparency.

Authors:  Elizabeth Hutchings; Max Loomes; Phyllis Butow; Frances M Boyle
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2020-10-09

5.  A systematic literature review of attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: a focus on consent.

Authors:  Elizabeth Hutchings; Max Loomes; Phyllis Butow; Frances M Boyle
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2021-05-04

6.  'You should at least ask'. The expectations, hopes and fears of rare disease patients on large-scale data and biomaterial sharing for genomics research.

Authors:  Pauline McCormack; Anna Kole; Sabina Gainotti; Deborah Mascalzoni; Caron Molster; Hanns Lochmüller; Simon Woods
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 7.  'Quality in, quality out', a stepwise approach to EBM for rare diseases promoted by MEN1.

Authors:  Dirk-Jan van Beek; Rachel S van Leeuwaarde; Carolina Rc Pieterman; Menno R Vriens; Gerlof D Valk
Journal:  Endocr Connect       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 3.335

8.  Model consent clauses for rare disease research.

Authors:  Minh Thu Nguyen; Jack Goldblatt; Rosario Isasi; Marlene Jagut; Anneliene Hechtelt Jonker; Petra Kaufmann; Laetitia Ouillade; Fruszina Molnar-Gabor; Mahsa Shabani; Eric Sid; Anne Marie Tassé; Durhane Wong-Rieger; Bartha Maria Knoppers
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  Members of the public in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia expressing genetic exceptionalism say they are more willing to donate genomic data.

Authors:  Anna Middleton; Richard Milne; Heidi Howard; Emilia Niemiec; Lauren Robarts; Christine Critchley; Dianne Nicol; Barbara Prainsack; Jerome Atutornu; Danya F Vears; James Smith; Claire Steed; Paul Bevan; Erick R Scott; Jason Bobe; Peter Goodhand; Erika Kleiderman; Adrian Thorogood; Katherine I Morley
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 10.  Patients' and public views and attitudes towards the sharing of health data for research: a narrative review of the empirical evidence.

Authors:  Shona Kalkman; Johannes van Delden; Amitava Banerjee; Benoît Tyl; Menno Mostert; Ghislaine van Thiel
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 2.903

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.