Privacy and confidentiality in pragmatic clinical trials

Clinical Trials

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 520-529

  McGraw, Deven ^a   Greene, Sarah M ^b   Miner, Caroline S ^c   Staman, Karen L ^d   Welch, Mary Jane ^e   Rubel, Alan ^f  

^a Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP   (United States)

^b PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^d CHB Wordsmith Inc   (United States)

^e RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

autonomy; fair information practice principles; pragmatic clinical trials; Privacy; respect for persons

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNITY CARE; CONFIDENTIALITY; CONSULTATION; DATA SYNTHESIS; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE PRACTICE; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; JUSTICE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; REVIEW; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); INFORMED CONSENT; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; STANDARDS; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CONFIDENTIALITY; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; PRIVACY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84942906088     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774515597677     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, et al. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 2009; 301: 831-841.
2. Committee on the Learning Health Care System in America Institute of Medicine. Best care at lower cost: the path to continuously learning health care in America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2013, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207225/ (. accessed 28 January 2015).
3. Executive Office of the President. Big data: seizing opportunities, preserving values., http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/big-data-privacy-report-may-1-2014.pdf (2014,. accessed 20 January 2014).
4. Rathburn J, Hennessy J, Barlament J., Another day, another cyberattack: Premera Blue Cross announces large data breach. In: Safe & Sound: a privacy and security blog from Quarles & Brady, 2015, http://safeandsound.quarles.com/2015/03/another-day-another-cyberattack-premera-blue-cross-announces-large-data-breach/
5. Barlament J, Rathburn J., Were you affected by the Anthem breach? Answers to these questions may help. In: Safe & Sound: a privacy and security blog from Quarles & Brady, 2015, http://safeandsound.quarles.com/2015/02/were-you-affected-by-the-anthem-breach-answers-to-these-questions-may-help/
6. Koenig BA., Have we asked too much of consent? Hastings Cent Rep 2014; 44: 33-34.
7. Henderson GE., Is informed consent broken? Am J Med Sci 2011; 342: 267-272.
8. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL., Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 721-726.
9. McGraw D, Dempsey JX, Harris L, et al. Privacy as an enabler, not an impediment: building trust into health information exchange. Health Aff 2009; 28: 416-427.
10. Westin AF., Privacy and freedom. London: Bodley Head, 1970.
11. Allen AL., Uneasy access: privacy for women in a free society. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1988.
12. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Privacy and progress in whole genome sequencing., http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/PrivacyProgress508.pdf (2012,. accessed 15 January 2015).
13. Nissenbaum HF., Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books, 2010.
14. Rubel A., The particularized judgment account of privacy. Res Publica 2011; 17: 275-290.
15. Blaauw M., The epistemic account of privacy. Episteme 2013; 10: 167-177.
16. Beauchamp TL., Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
17. The Belmont Report. HHS.gov, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html (. accessed 9 June 2014).
18. Brock DW., A critique of three objections to physician-assisted suicide. Ethics 1999; 109: 519-547.
19. Benn SI., Privacy, freedom, and respect for persons. In: Pennock J, Chapman J, (eds) Privacy: Nomos XIII. New York: Atherton Press, 1971, pp. 1-26.
20. Rothstein MA., Is deidentification sufficient to protect health privacy in research? Am J Bioeth 2010; 10: 3-11.
21. Hall MA, Dugan E, Zheng B, et al. Trust in physicians and medical institutions: what is it, can it be measured, and does it matter? Milbank Q 2001; 79: 613-639, v.
22. Agaku IT, Adisa AO, Ayo-Yusuf OA, et al. Concern about security and privacy, and perceived control over collection and use of health information are related to withholding of health information from healthcare providers. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21: 374-378.
23. California Healthcare Foundation. Consumers and health information technology: a national survey., 2010, http://www.chcf.org/publications/2010/04/consumers-and-health-information-technology-a-national-survey
24. Goldman J., Protecting privacy to improve health care. Health Aff 1998; 17: 47-60.
25. Rubel A., Autonomy, surveillance, and privacy. In: Arras J, Kukla R, Fenton E, (eds) The Routledge companion to bioethics. New York; London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014, pp. 312-324.
26. Francis LP, Francis JG., Group compromise: perfect cases make problematic generalizations. Am J Bioeth 2010; 10: 25-27.
27. Hausman DM., Group risks, risks to groups, and group engagement in genetics research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2007; 17: 351-369.
28. Markle Foundation. The Markle connecting for health common framework for networked personal health information., http://www.markle.org/health/markle-common-framework/connecting-consumers/overview (2008,. accessed 15 January 2015).
29. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information: The HIPAA Privacy Rule. Beyond the HIPAA privacy rule: enhancing privacy, improving health through research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9578/ (. accessed 15 December 2013).
30. US Department of Health, Education & Welfare. Records, computers, and the rights of citizens. Report of the secretarys advisory committee on automated personal data systems, 1973, http://www.justice.gov/opcl/docs/rec-com-rights.pdf (. accessed 15 January 2015).
31. 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: 223-235.
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: 429-433.
33. Truven Health Analytics National Public Radio (NPR). Data privacy health poll., 2014, http://truvenhealth.com/Portals/0/NPR-Truven-Health-Poll/NPRPulseDataPrivacy-Nov2014.pdf
34. Grande D, Mitra N, Shah A, et al. The importance of purpose: moving beyond consent in the societal use of personal health information. Ann Intern Med 2014; 161: 855-862.
35. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights. Summary of the HIPAA privacy rule., 2003, http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/privacysummary.pdf
36. Code of Federal Regulations. HHS.gov, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html (. accessed 8 October 2014).
37. US Department of Education. Family educational rights and privacy act (FERPA)., http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html (. accessed 16 January 2015).
38. Department of Health and Human Services. 46 CFR 42: confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records., http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5node=42%3A1.0.1.1.2 (. accessed 26 January 2015).
39. National Institutes of Health. HIPAA privacy rule and its impacts on research: how can covered entities use and disclose protected health information for research and comply with the privacy rule? http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pr-08.asp (2007,. accessed 27 April 2015).
40. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA regulations relating to good clinical practice and clinical trials., http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/ucm155713.htm (2015,. accessed 16 June 2015).
41. 104th Congress. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of. 1996, http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/statute/hipaastatutepdf.pdf (. accessed 18 December 2013).
42. Armitage J, Souhami R, Friedman L, et al. The impact of privacy and confidentiality laws on the conduct of clinical trials. Clin Trials 2008; 5: 70-74.
43. Department of Health and Human Services. Final privacy rule preamble. Part 160-subpart A-general provisions, http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/final/PvcPre02.htm (. accessed 17 January 2015).
44. US Department of Health & Human Services. Guidance regarding methods for de-identification of protected health information in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rule., http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/De-identification/guidance.html (. accessed 11 December 2014).
45. McGraw D., Building public trust in uses of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act de-identified data. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20: 29-34.
46. Dunlop AL, Graham T, Leroy Z, et al. The impact of HIPAA authorization on willingness to participate in clinical research. Ann Epidemiol 2007; 17: 899-905.
47. OHerrin JK, Fost N, Kudsk KA., Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations: effect on medical record research. Ann Surg 2004; 239: 772-776; discussion 776-778.
48. Goldstein MM, Pewen WF., The HIPAA Omnibus Rule: implications for public health policy and practice. Public Health Rep 2013; 128: 554-558.
49. Department of Health and Human Services. Human subjects research protections: enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Fed Regist 2011; 76: 44512-44531.
50. PCORI Methodology Committee. PCORI methodology standards., http://www.pcori.org/assets/PCORI-Methodology-Standards1.pdf (2012,. accessed 8 October 2013).
51. NIH Collaboratory. Stakeholder engagement webpage., https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/cores/Pages/stakeholder-engagement.aspx (. accessed 28 April 2015).
52. Goldstein MM, Rein AR,. Consumer consent options for electronic health information exchange: policy considerations and analysis., https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-security/choice-model-final032610.pdf. (2010,. accessed 21 July 2015).
53. Coronado GD, Burdick T, Petrik A, et al. Using an automated data-driven, EHR-embedded program for mailing FIT kits: lessons from the STOP CRC pilot study. J Gen Pract 2014; 2: 1000141.
54. Coronado GD, Vollmer WM, Petrik A, et al. Strategies and opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations: design of a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial. Contemp Clin Trials 2014; 38: 344-349.
55. NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory Website. Time to reduce mortality in end-stage renal disease (TiME)., https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/demonstration-projects/Pages/TiME.aspx (2013,. accessed 21 July 2015).