Holding personal information in a disease-specific register: The perspectives of people with multiple sclerosis and professionals on consent and access

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 92-96

  Baird, W ^a   Jackson, R ^a   Ford, H ^b   Evangelou, N ^c   Busby, M ^d   Bull, P ^a   Zajicek, J ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b ST JAMES S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c QUEEN S MEDICAL CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^d ST LUKE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e Clinical Neurology Research   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPUTER SECURITY; ETHICS; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; METHODOLOGY; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REGISTER; STANDARD; TRUST; UNITED KINGDOM;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPUTER SECURITY; DATA COLLECTION; ENGLAND; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NORTHERN IRELAND; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REGISTRIES; TRUST;

EID: 59949084565     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.025304     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. UK Association of Cancer Registries. http://www.ukacr.org/ (accessed 29 Oct 2008).
2. UK Renal Registry. http://www.renalreg.com/ (accessed 29 Oct 2008).
3. The Medical Act 1983(Amendment) Order 2002. London: The Stationery Office, 2002.
4. Department of Health. Record management: NHS code of practice. London: DH, 2006.
5. Department of Health/Caldicott Committee. The Caldicott report on the review of patient identifiable information. London: DH, 1997.
6. Department of Health. Confidentiality: NHS code of practice. London: DH, 2003.
7. Doll R, Peto R. Rights involve responsibilities for patients. BMJ 2001;322:730.
8. Human rights act 1998. London: The Stationery Office, 1998a
9. Data protection act 1998. London: The Stationery Office, 1998b
10. Brown P. Cancer registries fear imminent collapse. BMJ 2000;321:849.
11. Helliwell T. Cancer registries fear collapse. Need for patient consent for cancer registration creates logistical nightmare. BMJ 2001;322:730.
12. Lawlor DA, Stone T. Public health and data protection: an inevitable collision or potential for a meeting of minds? Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:1221-5.
13. 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.
14. McKinney P, Jones S, Parslow R, et al. A feasibility study of signed consent for the collection of patient identifiable information for a national paediatric clinical audit database. BMJ 2005;330:877-9.
15. Patient Information Advisory Group. Information for patients: An introduction to the Patient Information Advisory Group for health professionals and researchers. 2006.
16. Academy of Medical Sciences. Personal health for public good: using health information in medical research. London: Academy of Medical Sciences, 2006.
17. Higginson I, Hart S, Silber E, et al. Symptom prevelance and severity in people severely affected by multiple sclerosis. J Palliat Care 2006;22:158-65.
18. Baker R, Shiels C, Stevenson K, et al. What proportion of patients refuse consent to data collection from their records for research purposes? Br J Gen Pract 2000;50:655-6.
19. Willison DJ, Kapral MK, Peladeau P, et al. Variation in recruitment across sites in a consent-based clinical data registry: lessons from the Canadian Stroke Network. BMC Med Ethics 2006;7:E6.
20. Woolf SH, Rothemich SF, Johnson RE, et al. Selection bias from requiring patients to give consent to examine data for health services research. Arch Fam Med 2000;9:1111-18.
21. Nair K, Willison D, Holbrook A, et al. Patients' consent preferences regarding the use of their health information for research purposes: A qualitative study. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004;9:22-7.
22. Damschroder LJ, Pritts JL, Neblo MA, et al. Patients, privacy and trust: patients' willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records. Soc Sci Med 2007;64:223-35.
23. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995;311:299-302.
24. McLafferty I. Focus group interviews as a data collection strategy. J Adv Nurs 2004;48:87-194.
25. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in healthcare: analysing qualitative data, BMJ 2000;320:114-16.
26. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. The qualitative researchers companion. London: Sage Publications, 2002:305-30.
27. Al-Shahi R, Warlow C. Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit. BMJ 2000; 321:1031-2.
28. Peto J, Fletcher O, Gilham C. Data protection, informed consent, and research. BMJ 2004;328:1029-30.
29. Barrett G, Cassell JA, Peacock JL, et al. National survey of British public's views on use of identifiable medical data by the National Cancer Registry. BMJ 2006;332:1068-72.
30. Robling MR, Hood K, Houston H, et al. Public attitudes towards the use of primary care patient record data in medical research without consent: A qualitative study. J Med Ethics 2004;30:104-9.
31. Page SA, Mitchell I. Patients' opinions on privacy, consent and the disclosure of health information for medical research. Chronic Dis Can 2006;27:60-7.
32. Ford HL. The effect of consent guidelines on a multiple sclerosis register. Mult Scler 2006;12:104-7.
33. Clark AM, Findlay IN. Attaining adequate consent for the use of electronic patient records: an opt-out strategy to reconcile individuals' rights and public benefit. Public Health 2005;119:1003-10.
34. Haynes CL, Cook GA, Jones MA. Legal and ethical considerations in processing patient-identifiable data without patient consent: lessons learnt from developing a disease register. J Med Ethics 2007;33:302-7.
35. Kettis-Lindblad A, Ring L, Viberth E, et al. Perceptions of potential donors in the Swedish public towards information and consent procedures in relation to use of human tissue samples in biobanks: a population-based study. Scand J Public Health 2007;35:148-56.
36. Caulfield T, Upshur RE, Daar A. DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Med Ethics 2003;4:E1.