Ethics and privacy issues of a practice-based surveillance system: Need for a national-level institutional research ethics board and consent standards;Questions d'éthique et de confidentialité concernant un système de surveillance de la pratique: Nécessité d'un bureau institutionnel d'éthique en recherche ainsi que de normes de consentement au niveau national

Canadian Family Physician

Volumn 57, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 1165-1173

  Kotecha, Jyoti A ^a   Manca, Donna ^b   Lambert Lanning, Anita ^c   Keshavjee, Karim ^d   Drummond, Neil ^e   Godwin, Marshall ^f   Greiver, Michelle ^g   Putnam, Wayne ^h   Lussier, Marie Thérèse ⁱ   Birtwhistle, Richard ^a,j  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c College of Family Physicians of Canada ^*  (Canada)

^d InfoClin Inc   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^f MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^h DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

ⁱ UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^j MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE LUNG DISEASE; COMPUTER SECURITY; CONFIDENTIALITY; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; DEPRESSION; DIABETES MELLITUS; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MEDICAL INFORMATION; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIVACY; RESEARCH ETHICS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CANADA; FAMILY PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 80054686068     PISSN: 0008350X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Birtwhistle R, Keshavjee K, Lambert-Lanning A, Godwin M, Greiver M, Manca D, et al. Building a pan-Canadian primary care sentinel surveillance network: initial development and moving forward. J Am Board Fam Med 2009;22(4):412-22.
2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; 1998.
3. International Conference on Harmonisation. International Conference on Harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. Guideline for good clinical practice E6(R1). Geneva, Switz: International Conference on Harmonisation; 1996. Available from: www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public-Web-Site/ICH-Products/Guidelines/ Efficacy/E6-R1/Step4/E6-R1--Guideline.pdf. Accessed 2011 Aug 12.
4. Government of Saskatchewan [website]. Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). Regina, SK: Government of Saskatchewan; 2011. Available from: www.health.gov.sk.ca/health-information-protection-act. Accessed 2011 Aug 12.
5. Centres de santé et de services sociaux du Quebec [website]. Loi sur les services de santé et les services sociaux. Quebec, QC: Government of Quebec; 2011. Available from: www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/ dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/S-4-2/S4-2.html. Accessed 2011 Sep 6.
6. Centres de santé et de services sociaux du Quebec [website]. Loi sur l'accès aux documents des organismes publics et sur la protection des renseignements personnels. Quebec, QC: Government of Quebec; 2011. Available from: www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type= 2&file=/S-4-2/S4-2.html. Accessed 2011 Sep 6.
7. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Ottawa, ON: Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada; 2009. Available from: www.priv.gc.ca/ information/guide-e.pdf. Accessed 2011 Aug 12.
8. Service Canada [website]. Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004. S.O. 2004, chapter 3. Schedule A. Consolidation period: from November 1, 2007, to December 14, 2009. Ottawa, ON: Service Canada; 2011. Available from: www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws-statutes-04p03-e.htm. Accessed 2011 Aug 12.
9. Chaddah MR. The Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board: a central REB that works. Curr Oncol 2008;15(1):49-52.
10. Willison DJ, Emerson C, Szala-Meneok KV, Gibson E, Schwartz L, Weisbaum KM, et al. Access to medical records for research purposes: varying perceptions across research ethics boards. J Med Ethics 2008;34(4):308-14.
11. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann Intern Med 2001;134(2):152-7. (Pubitemid 32096343)
12. 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(11):1003-10. Epub 2005 Sep 26.
13. Kho ME, Duffett M, Willison DJ, Cook DJ, Brouwers MC. Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review. BMJ 2009;338:b866. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b866.
14. El Emam K, Jabbouri S, Sams S, Drouet Y, Power M. Evaluating common de-identification heuristics for personal health information. J Med Internet Res 2006;8(4):e28. (Pubitemid 47450199)
15. El Emam K, Dankar F. Protecting privacy using k-anonymity. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008;15(5):627-37. Epub 2008 Jun 25.
16. Finch SA, Barkin SL, Wasserman RC, Dhepyasuwan N, Slora EJ, Sege RD. Effects of local institutional review board review on participation in national practice-based research network studies. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009;163(12):1130-4.
17. Driscoll A, Currey J, Worrall-Carter L, Stewart S. Ethical dilemmas of a large national multi-centre study in Australia: time for some consistency. J Clin Nurs 2008;17(16):2212-20.
18. Dziak K, Anderson R, Sevick MA, Weisman CS, Levine DW, Scholle SH. Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study. Health Serv Res 2005;40(1):279-90. (Pubitemid 40229360)
19. Randal J. Growing pains: central review board project still developing. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(9):636-7. (Pubitemid 36603709)
20. National Health and Medical Research Council [website]. Health ethics. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government; 2011. Available from: www.nhmrc.gov.au/health-ethics. Accessed 2011 Aug 12.
21. Al-Shahi R. Research ethics committees in the UK - the pressure is now on research and development departments. J R Soc Med 2005;98(10):444-7. (Pubitemid 41497538)
22. Gold J, Dewa C. Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: is there a better way? Health Serv Res 2005;40(1):291-307. (Pubitemid 40229361)
23. Ravina B, Deuel L, Siderowf A, Dorsey ER. Local institutional review board (IRB) review of a multicenter trial: local costs without local context. Ann Neurol 2010;67(2):258-60.
24. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans. 2nd ed. Ottawa, ON: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada; 2010.
25. Wagner TH, Murray C, Goldberg J, Adler JM, Abrams J. Costs and benefits of the National Cancer Institute central institutional review board. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(4):662-6. Epub 2009 Oct 19.