PURPOSE: The expansion of learning health care systems (LHSs) promises to bolster research and quality improvement endeavors. Stewards of patient data have a duty to respect the preferences of the patients from whom, and for whom, these data are being collected and consolidated. METHODS: We conducted democratic deliberations with a diverse sample of 217 patients treated at 4 sites to assess views about LHSs, using the example of CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS, to stimulate discussion. In small group discussions, participants deliberated about different policies for how to provide information and to seek consent regarding the inclusion of patient data. These discussions were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of participants, 67% were female, 61% were non-Hispanic Whites, and the mean age was 60 years. Patients' opinions about sharing their data illuminated 2 spectra: trust/distrust and individualism/collectivism. Positions on these spectra influenced the weight placed on 3 priorities: promoting societal altruism, ensuring respect for persons, and protecting themselves. In turn, consideration of these priorities seemed to inform preferences regarding patient choices and system transparency. Most advocated for a policy whereby patients would receive notification and have the opportunity to opt out of including their medical records in the LHS. Participants reasoned that such a policy would balance personal protections and societal welfare. CONCLUSION: System transparency and patient choice are vital if patients are to feel respected and to trust LHS endeavors. Those responsible for LHS implementation should ensure that all patients receive an explanation of their options, together with standardized, understandable, comprehensive materials.
PURPOSE: The expansion of learning health care systems (LHSs) promises to bolster research and quality improvement endeavors. Stewards of patient data have a duty to respect the preferences of the patients from whom, and for whom, these data are being collected and consolidated. METHODS: We conducted democratic deliberations with a diverse sample of 217 patients treated at 4 sites to assess views about LHSs, using the example of CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS, to stimulate discussion. In small group discussions, participants deliberated about different policies for how to provide information and to seek consent regarding the inclusion of patient data. These discussions were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of participants, 67% were female, 61% were non-Hispanic Whites, and the mean age was 60 years. Patients' opinions about sharing their data illuminated 2 spectra: trust/distrust and individualism/collectivism. Positions on these spectra influenced the weight placed on 3 priorities: promoting societal altruism, ensuring respect for persons, and protecting themselves. In turn, consideration of these priorities seemed to inform preferences regarding patient choices and system transparency. Most advocated for a policy whereby patients would receive notification and have the opportunity to opt out of including their medical records in the LHS. Participants reasoned that such a policy would balance personal protections and societal welfare. CONCLUSION: System transparency and patient choice are vital if patients are to feel respected and to trust LHS endeavors. Those responsible for LHS implementation should ensure that all patients receive an explanation of their options, together with standardized, understandable, comprehensive materials.
Authors: Susan Dorr Goold; Michael A Neblo; Scott Y H Kim; Raymond D E Vries; Gene Rowe; Peter Muhlberger Journal: Hastings Cent Rep Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.683
Authors: Marc S Williams; Adam H Buchanan; F Daniel Davis; W Andrew Faucett; Miranda L G Hallquist; Joseph B Leader; Christa L Martin; Cara Z McCormick; Michelle N Meyer; Michael F Murray; Alanna K Rahm; Marci L B Schwartz; Amy C Sturm; Jennifer K Wagner; Janet L Williams; Huntington F Willard; David H Ledbetter Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 6.301
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
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
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Kent A Griffith; Rochelle D Jones; Chris Krenz; Michele Gornick; Rebecca Spence; Raymond De Vries; Sarah T Hawley; Robin Zon; Sage Bolte; Navid Sadeghi; Richard L Schilsky; Angela R Bradbury Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rochelle D Jones; Chris Krenz; Kent A Griffith; Rebecca Spence; Angela R Bradbury; Raymond De Vries; Sarah T Hawley; Robin Zon; Sage Bolte; Navid Sadeghi; Richard L Schilsky; Reshma Jagsi Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-12-02
Authors: Rochelle D Jones; Chris Krenz; Kent A Griffith; Rebecca Spence; Angela R Bradbury; Raymond De Vries; Sarah T Hawley; Robin Zon; Sage Bolte; Navid Sadeghi; Richard L Schilsky; Reshma Jagsi Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-10-23