Access to medical records for research purposes: Varying perceptions across research ethics boards

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 308-314

  Willison, D J ^a   Emerson, C ^b   Szala Meneok, K V ^b   Gibson, E ^c   Schwartz, L ^b   Weisbaum, K M ^d   Fournier, F ^e   Brazil, K ^f   Coughlin, M D ^f  

^a CENTRE FOR EVALUATION OF MEDICINES   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e CLIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MONTREAL   (Canada)

^f MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; CONFIDENTIALITY; ETHICS; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIVACY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RESEARCH SUBJECT; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CANADA; CONFIDENTIALITY; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS; PRIVACY; RESEARCH SUBJECTS;

EID: 35649022736     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2006.020032     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Human Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans, 1998 (with 2000, 2002, 2005 amendments). Ottawa: The Councils, 2005.
2. Tu JV, Willison DJ, Silver FL, et al. Impracticability of informed consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1414-21.
3. Melton LJ. The threat to medical-records research. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1466-70.
4. McCarthy DB, Shatin D, Drinkard CR, et al. Medical records and privacy: empirical effects of legislation. Health Serv Res 1999;34:417-25.
5. Kulynych J, Korn D. The effect of the new federal medical-privacy rule on research. N E J Med 2002;346:201-4.
6. Woodward B. Challenges to human subject protections in US medical research [see comments]. JAMA 1999;282:1947-52.
7. Gibson E. Jewel in the crown? The Romanow Commission proposal to develop a national electronic health record system. Sask Law Rev 2003;66:647-65.
8. International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements of Pharmacenticals for Human Use. ICH harmonized tripartite guideline: guideline for good clinical pratice (ICH-GCP guideline) Geneva: ICH, 1996.
9. McClure KB, Delorio NM, Schmidt TA, et al. A qualitative study of institutional review board members' experience reviewing research proposals using emergency exception from informed consent. J Med Ethics 2007;33:289-93.
10. Angell E, Sutton AJ, Windridge K, et al. Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison. J Med Ethics 2006;32:662-4.
11. de Champlain J, Patenaude J. Review of a mock research protocol in functional neuroimaging by Canadian research ethics boards. J Med Ethics 2006;32:530-4.
12. Souhami R. Governance of research that uses identifiable personal data. BMJ 2006;333:315-16.
13. US General Accounting Office. Medical records privacy. Access needed for health research, but oversight of privacy protections is limited. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, 1999:1-28.
14. McDonald M. Canadian governance of health research involving human subjects: is anybody minding the store? Health Law J 2001;9:1-21.
15. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). Code of federal regulations. 2005. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm (accessed 21 Jan 2008).
16. Silverman H, Hull SC, Sugarman J. Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial [see comment]. Crit Care Med 2001;29:235-41.
17. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, et al. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA 2003;290:360-6.
18. Redshaw ME, Harris A, Baum JD. Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees. J Med Ethics 1996;22:78-82.
19. Hearnshaw H. Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study. BMJ 2004;328:140-1.
20. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Human Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans, 1998 (with 2000, 2002, 2005 amendments). Section 3.5. Ottawa: The Councils, 2005.
21. Anonymous. Guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1981.
22. Martin A (ed). Model code for the protection of personal information. Mississauga, Ontario: Canadian Standards Association
23. Willison DJ. Data protection and the promotion of health research: if the laws are not the problem, then what is. Healthcare Policy 2007;2:39-43.
24. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Privacy Advisory Committee. CIHR best practices for protecting privacy in health research, September 2005. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2005. http://www.cihr-irsc. gc.ca/e/documents/pbp_sept2005_e.pdf (accessed 21 Jan 2008).
25. Shalowitz D, Wendler D. Informed consent for research and authorization under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule: an integrated approach. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:685- 8.
26. Davis D. Clinical practice guidelines and the translation of knowledge: the science of continuing medical education. CMAJ 2000;163:1278-9.
27. Statistical Policy Office, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Report on statistical disclosure limitation methodology. Statistical policy working paper 22 (May 1994). Washington, DC: Statistical Policy Office, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 1994.
28. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Privacy Advisory Committee. CIHR best practices for protecting privacy in health research, September 2005. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2005:77-78. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/pbp_sept2005_e.pdf (accessed 21 Jan 2008).
29. Willison DJ, Schwartz L, Abelson J, et al. Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: what is the opinion of the Canadian public? J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:706-12.
30. Beagan BL. Ethics review for human subjects research: interviews with members of research ethics boards and national organizations. In: McDonald M, ed. The governance of health research involving human subjects (HRIHS). Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada, 2001:173-236.
31. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data. Paris: OECD, 1980. http://www.oecd.org/findDocument/0.3354. en_2649_34255_1_119820_1_2_1.00.html (accessed 21 Jan 2008).