Christopher A Harle1, Elizabeth H Golembiewski1, Kiarash P Rahmanian2, Janice L Krieger3, Dorothy Hagmajer3, Arch G Mainous2,4, Ray E Moseley2. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 2. Department of Community Health and Family Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 3. Department of Advertising, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Department of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess patient perceptions of using an interactive electronic consent (e-consent) application when deciding whether or not to grant broad consent for research use of their identifiable electronic health record (EHR) information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this qualitative study, we conducted a series of 42 think-aloud interviews with 32 adults. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. RESULTS: We identified themes related to patient preferences, reservations, and mixed attitudes toward consenting electronically; low- and high-information-seeking behavior; and an emphasis on reassuring information, such as data protections and prohibitions against sharing data with pharmaceutical companies. Participants expressed interest in the types of information contained in their EHRs, safeguards protecting EHR data, and specifics on studies that might use their EHR data. DISCUSSION: This study supports the potential value of interactive e-consent applications that allow patients to customize their consent experience. This study also highlights that some people have concerns about e-consent platforms and desire more detailed information about administrative processes and safeguards that protect EHR data used in research. CONCLUSION: This study contributes new insights on how e-consent applications could be designed to ensure that patients' information needs are met when seeking consent for research use of health record information. Also, this study offers a potential electronic approach to meeting the new Common Rule requirement that consent documents contain a "concise and focused" presentation of key information followed by more details.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess patient perceptions of using an interactive electronic consent (e-consent) application when deciding whether or not to grant broad consent for research use of their identifiable electronic health record (EHR) information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this qualitative study, we conducted a series of 42 think-aloud interviews with 32 adults. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. RESULTS: We identified themes related to patient preferences, reservations, and mixed attitudes toward consenting electronically; low- and high-information-seeking behavior; and an emphasis on reassuring information, such as data protections and prohibitions against sharing data with pharmaceutical companies. Participants expressed interest in the types of information contained in their EHRs, safeguards protecting EHR data, and specifics on studies that might use their EHR data. DISCUSSION: This study supports the potential value of interactive e-consent applications that allow patients to customize their consent experience. This study also highlights that some people have concerns about e-consent platforms and desire more detailed information about administrative processes and safeguards that protect EHR data used in research. CONCLUSION: This study contributes new insights on how e-consent applications could be designed to ensure that patients' information needs are met when seeking consent for research use of health record information. Also, this study offers a potential electronic approach to meeting the new Common Rule requirement that consent documents contain a "concise and focused" presentation of key information followed by more details.
Authors: Margaret M Byrne; Stacey L Tannenbaum; Stefan Glück; Judith Hurley; Michael Antoni Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Nancy E Kass; Jeremy Sugarman; Amy M Medley; Linda A Fogarty; Holly A Taylor; Christopher K Daugherty; Mark R Emerson; Steven N Goodman; Fay J Hlubocky; Herbert I Hurwitz; Michael Carducci; Annallys Goodwin-Landher Journal: IRB Date: 2009 May-Jun
Authors: Christopher A Harle; Elizabeth H Golembiewski; Kiarash P Rahmanian; Babette Brumback; Janice L Krieger; Kenneth W Goodman; Arch G Mainous; Ray E Moseley Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Elizabeth H Golembiewski; Arch G Mainous; Kiarash P Rahmanian; Babette Brumback; Benjamin J Rooks; Janice L Krieger; Kenneth W Goodman; Ray E Moseley; Christopher A Harle Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2021 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Sara M Andrews; Melissa Raspa; Anne Edwards; Rebecca Moultrie; Lauren Turner-Brown; Laura Wagner; Alexandra Alvarez Rivas; Mary Katherine Frisch; Anne C Wheeler Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Melissa Raspa; Ryan S Paquin; Derek S Brown; Sara Andrews; Anne Edwards; Rebecca Moultrie; Laura Wagner; MaryKate Frisch; Lauren Turner-Brown; Anne C Wheeler Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Sumithra Velupillai; Hanna Suominen; Maria Liakata; Angus Roberts; Anoop D Shah; Katherine Morley; David Osborn; Joseph Hayes; Robert Stewart; Johnny Downs; Wendy Chapman; Rina Dutta Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Emily Skelton; Nicholas Drey; Mary Rutherford; Susan Ayers; Christina Malamateniou Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2020-09-13 Impact factor: 4.046