Whose interest? British newspaper reporting of use of medical records for research

Journal of Health Services Research and Policy

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 140-145

  Brown, Lindsey ^a,c,d   Parker, Michael ^a,c,d   Dixon Woods, Mary ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c Department of Bioethics ^*

^d UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENTIALITY; ETHICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RECORD; PATIENT RIGHT; PATIENT SAFETY; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL SECRECY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC RELATIONS; PUBLICATION; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CONFIDENTIALITY; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MASS MEDIA; MEDICAL RECORDS; NEWSPAPERS; PUBLISHING;

EID: 47749102098     PISSN: 13558196     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007126     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Walley T. Using personal health information in medical research. BMJ 2006;332:130-1
2. Parker M. When is research on patient records without consent ethical? J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10:183-6
3. Hurwitz B. Informed consent for access to medical records for health services research. In: Doyal l, Tobias J, eds. Informed Consent in Medical Research. London: BMJ Books, 2001
4. Seale C. Health and media: an overview. Sociol Health Illness 2003;25:513-31
5. Academy of Medical Sciences. Personal data for public good: using health information in medical research. London: Academy of Medical Sciences, 2006
6. Connell I. Mistaken Identities: tabloid and newspaper discourse. The Public 1998;5:11-31
7. Seale C, Kirk D, Tobin M, et al. Effect of media portrayals of removal of children's tissue on UK tumour bank. BMJ 2005;331:401-3
8. Booth CM, Dranitsaris G, Gainford MC, et al. External influences and priority-setting for anti-agent cancers. BMC Cancer 2007;7:110
9. Iversen A, Liddell K, Fear N, Hotopf M, Wessely S. Consent, confidentiality, and the Data Protection Act. BMJ 2006;332:165-9
10. Ward HJT, Cousens SN, Smith-Bathgate B, et al. Obstacles to conducting epidemiological research in the UK general population. BMJ 2004;329:277-9
11. Shaw S, Barrett G. Research governance: regulating risk or reducing harm? J R Soc Med 2006;99:14-19
12. Al-Shahi R, Vousden C, Warlow C. Bias from requiring explicit consent from all participants in observational research: prospective, population based study. BMJ 2005; 331:942-6
13. Patterson JT. The dread disease: Cancer and modern American culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987
14. Seale C, Dixon-Woods M, Kirk D. Commodification of body parts: by medicine or by media? Body Soc 2006; 12:25-42
15. Kitzinger J. Media templates: patterns of association and the (re)construction of meaning over time. Media Cult Soc 2000; 22:61-84
16. Dixon-Woods M, Wilson D, Jackson C, Cavers D, Pritchard-Jones K. Human tissue and "the public": the case of childhood cancer tumour banking. Biosocieties 2008;3:57-80
17. The Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry. Report. London: The Stationery Office, 2001
18. Armstrong V, Barnett J, Cooper H, et al. Public Perspectives on the Governance of Biomedical Research: A qualitative study in a deliberative context. London: Wellcome Trust, 2007
19. Medical Research Council and Ipsos Mori. The use of personal health information in medical research general public consultation. Final report. London: Medical Research Council, 2007
20. Lull J, Hinerman S eds. Media Scandals: Morality and Desire in the Popular Culture Marketplace. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1997