Public good, personal privacy: A citizens' deliberation about using medical information for pharmacoepidemiological research

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 65, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 150-156

  Parkin, Lianne ^a   Paul, Charlotte ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

CITIZENSHIP; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GUIDELINE; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES; PUBLIC GOODS; PUBLIC HEALTH; STAKEHOLDER; TEMPORAL ANALYSIS;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ARTICLE; DUTY TO RECONTACT; ETHICS; EXPERT WITNESS; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NEW ZEALAND; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIVACY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC RELATIONS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESEARCH SUBJECT; STANDARD;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNITY-INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; DISCLOSURE; DUTY TO RECONTACT; EXPERT TESTIMONY; GROUP PROCESSES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; JUDICIAL ROLE; MEDICAL RECORDS; NEW ZEALAND; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PRIVACY; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH SUBJECTS;

EID: 78651281313     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: 14702738     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2009.097436     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Doll R. Public benefit and personal privacy: the problems of medical investigation in the community. Proc R Soc Med 1974;67:1281-5.
2. Gordis L, Gold E, Seltser R. Privacy protection in epidemiologic and medical research: a challenge and a responsibility. Am J Epidemiol 1977;105:163-8.
3. Vandenbroucke JP. Privacy, confidentiality and epidemiology: the Dutch ordeal. Int J Epidemiol 1992;21:825-6.
4. Doll R, Peto R. Rights involve responsibilities for patients. BMJ 2001;322:730.
5. Metcalfe C, Martin RM, Noble S, et al. Low risk research using routinely collected identifiable health information without informed consent: encounters with the Patient Information Advisory Group. J Med Ethics 2008;34:37-40.
6. Dyer C. Researchers have failed to ease access to patients' data for research. BMJ 2009;338: b1961.
7. UKCRC R&D Advisory Group to Connecting for Health. Report of research simulations. London: UKCRC, 2007.
8. Kho ME, Duffett M, Willison DJ, et al. Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review. BMJ 2009;338: b866.
9. New Zealand Government. Privacy Act, 1993. http://www.legislation. govt.nz/act/public/1993/0028/latest/viewpdf.aspx (accessed May 2009).
10. Privacy Commissioner. Health Information Privacy Code, 1994. http://www.privacy.org.nz/assets/Files/Codes-of-Practice-materials/ Health-Information-Privacy-Code-1994-including-Amendment.pdf (accessed May 2009).
11. National Ethics Advisory Committee. Ethical guidelines for observational studies. Observational research, audits and related activities. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2006.
12. Davidson H, Dawson J, Moore A. Law, ethics and epidemiology: the case of the cervical screening audit. NZ Bioeth J 2001;2:8-26.
13. Lowrance WW. Learning from experience: privacy and the secondary use of data in health research. London: The Nuffield Trust, 2002.
14. The Academy of Medical Sciences. Personal data for public good: using health information in medical research. London: The Academy of Medical Sciences, 2006.
15. Luskin RC, Fishkin JS, Jowell R. Considered opinions: deliberative polling in Britain. Br J Polit Sci 2002;32:455-87.
16. Ackerman B, Fishkin JS. Deliberation day. J Polit Philos 2002;10:129-52.
17. Goodin RE, Niemeryer S. When does deliberation begin? Internal reflection versus public discussion in deliberative democracy. Polit Stud 2003;51:627-49.
18. Carson L. Consult your community. A handbook. A guide to using citizens' juries. Sydney: Planning NSW, 2003.
19. McIver S. Healthy debate? An independent evaluation of citizens' juries in health settings. London: King's Fund, 1998.
20. Coote A, Lenaghan J. Citizens' juries: theory into practice. London: Institute for Public Policy Research, 1997.
21. Skegg DCG. Evaluating the safety of medicines, with particular reference to contraception. Stat Med 2001;20:3557-69.
22. Wade DT. Ethics, audit, and research: all shades of grey. BMJ 2005;330:468-71.
23. Paul C, Nicholls R, Priest P, et al. Making policy decisions about population screening for breast cancer: the role of citizens' deliberation. Health Policy 2008;85:314-20.
24. Hunter I. Patient attitudes towards access to their personal electronic health records. Health [e] News 2008;21:10-11.
25. Ministry of Health and Health Research Council of New Zealand. National application form for ethical approval of a research project. Wellington: Ministry of Health and Health Research Council of New Zealand, 2005.
26. Ministry of Health and Health Research Council of New Zealand. Guidelines for completion of the National Application Form for Ethical Approval of a Research Project (NAF-2005 v1). Wellington: Ministry of Health and Health Research Council of New Zealand, 2005.
27. Health and Disability Commissioner. Code of health and disability services consumers' rights. http://www.hdc.org.nz/files/hdc/code-leaflet.pdf (accessed May 2009).
28. Wright JR Jr. Alternative interpretations of the same data: flaws in the process of consulting the Canadian public about xenotransplantation issues. Can Med Assoc J 2002;167:40-2.
29. Price D. Choices without reasons: citizens' juries and policy evaluation. J Med Ethics 2000;26:272-6.
30. NHS Information Authority. NHS Information Authority in conjunction with The Consumers' Association and Health Which? Share with care: people's views on consent and confidentiality of patient information. London: NHS Information Authority, 2002.
31. Bomba D, de Silva A. An Australian case study of patient attitudes towards the use of computerised medical records and unique identifiers. In: Patel V, ed. MEDINFO 2001. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2001:1430-4.
32. Kass NE, Natowicz MR, Hull SC, et al. The use of medical records in research: what do patients want? J Law Med Ethics 2003;31:429-33.
33. EKOS Research Associates. Electronic health information and privacy survey: what Canadians thinkd2007. Ottawa: Health Canada and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2007.
34. Whiddett R, Hunter I, Engelbrecht J, et al. Patients' attitudes towards sharing their health information. Int J Med Inf 2006;75:530-41.
35. Campbell Research and Consulting. The impact of privacy legislation on NHMRC stakeholders. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, 2004.
36. Nair K, Willison D, Holbrook A, et al; for the COMPETE investigators. 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.
37. 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.
38. Armstrong V, Barnett J, Cooper H, et al. Public attitudes to research governance: a qualitative study in a deliberative context. London: Wellcome Trust, 2007.
39. Medical Research Council. The use of personal information in medical research: general public consultation final report. London: Medical Research Council, 2007.
40. Willison D, Swinton M, Schwartz L, et al. Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: insights from a public dialogue. BMC Med Ethics 2008;9:18-30.
41. 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.
42. Saxena N, MacKinnon MP, Watling J, et al. Understanding Canadians' attitudes and expectations: citizens' dialogue on privacy and the use of personal information for health research in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc, 2006.
43. NICE Citizens' Council. The attitude of the public to the use of patient information obtained from medical records by the National Confidential Enquiries. London: NICE, 2004.
44. 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.