Public responses to the sharing and linkage of health data for research purposes: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies

BMC Medical Ethics

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 1-24

  Aitken, Mhairi ^a   De St Jorre, Jenna ^a   Pagliari, Claudia ^a   Jepson, Ruth ^b   Cunningham Burley, Sarah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy (SCPHRP)   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Data linkage; Data sharing; Health informatics; Public engagement

Indexed keywords

AWARENESS; CONFIDENTIALITY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; JAPAN; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; NORTH AMERICA; ORGANIZATION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SWEDEN; SYNTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TRUST; ATTITUDE; ETHICS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC OPINION;

ATTITUDE; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL RECORDS; PUBLIC OPINION;

EID: 84994527395     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726939     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-016-0153-x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. WMA. WMA Declaration on Ethical Considerations Regarding Health Databases. WMA; 2002. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/d1/(accessed 9th June 2016)
2. MRC & Wellcome Trust. Access to Collections of Data and Materials for Health Research. Wellcome Trust; 2006. www.wellcome.ac.uk. Accessed 03 Nov 2016.
3. Wellcome Trust. The One-Way Mirror: Public attitudes to commercial access to health data. 2016. https://ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/sri-wellcome-trust-commercial-access-to-health-data.pdf.
4. Bradwell & Gallagher. FYI: The new politics of personal information. 2007. www.demos.co.uk. Accessed 03 Nov 2016.
5. Robling MR, Hood K, Houston H, Pill R, Fay J, Evans HM. Public attitudes towards the use of primary care patient record data in medical research without consent: a qualitative study. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(1):104-9.
6. Barbour RS, Barbour M. Evaluating and synthesising qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003;9(2):179-86.
7. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data. Br Med J. 2000;320:114-6.
8. Popay J, Rogers A, Williams G. Standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual Health Res. 1998;8:341-51.
9. Davidson S, McLean C, Treanor S, Aitken M, Cunningham-Burley S, Laurie G, Sethi N, Pagliari C. Public acceptability of data sharing between the public, private and third sectors for research purposes. (Social Research series). Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2013.
10. Wellcome Trust, Enabling data linkage to maximise the value of public health research data: full report Wellcome Trust; 2015 www.wellcome.ac.uk. Accessed 03 Nov 2016.
11. Holman CDJ, Bass AJ, Rosman DL, Smith MB, Semmens JB, Glasson EJ, Brook EL, Trutwein B, Rouse IL, Watson CR, de Klerk NH, Stanley FJ. A decade of data linkage in Western Australia: strategic design, applications and benefits of the WA data linkage system. Aust Health Rev. 2008;32(4):766-77.
12. Young TK, Kliewer E, Blanchard J, Mayer T. Monitoring disease burden and preventive behavior with data linkage: cervical cancer among aboriginal people in Manitoba, Canada. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(9):1466-8.
13. Fischbacher CM, Bhopal R, Povey C, Steiner M, Chalmers J, Mueller G, Jamieson J, Knowles D. Record linked retrospective cohort study of 4.6 million people exploring ethnic variations in disease: myocardial infarction in South Asians. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:142.
14. Veugelers PJ, Yip AM, Kephart G. Proximate and contextual socioeconomic determinants of mortality: multilevel approaches in a setting with universal health care coverage. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154(8):725-32.
15. Jutte DP, Roos LL, Brownell MD. Administrative record linkage as a tool for public health research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32:91-108.
16. Kariminia A, Butler TG, Corben SP, Levy MH, Grant L, Kaldor JM, Law MG. Extreme cause-specific mortality in a cohort of adult prisoners - 1988 to 2002: a data-linkage study. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36:310-6.
17. CASP. CASP Qualitative Checklist. 2013. http://www.casp-uk.net/.
18. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(45):1-10.
19. Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R. Using meta-ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: A worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(4):209-15.
20. Ishikawa H, Yamazaki Y. How applicable are western models of patient-physician relationship in Asia?: Changing patient-physician relationship in contemporary Japan. Int J Jpn Sociol. 2005;14:84-93.
21. Pentz RD, Billot L, Wendler D. Research on stored biological samples: Views of African American and White American cancer patients. Am J Med Genet. 2006;140A:733-9.
22. Mezuk B, Eaton WW, Zandi P. Participant characteristics that influence consent for genetic research in a population-based survey: the Baltimore epidemiological catchment area follow-up. Community Genet. 2008;11:171-8.
23. Hartz SM, Johnson EO, Saccone NL, Hatsukami D, Breslau N, Bierut LJ. Inclusion of African Americans in genetic studies: what is the barrier? Am J Epidemiol. 2010;174(3):336-44.
24. Devers K, Gray B, Ramos C, Shah A, Blavin F, Waidmann T. The feasibility of using electronic health records (EHRs) and other electronic health data for research on small populations. Washington: Urban Institute; 2013.
25. Buckley BS, Murphy AW, MacFarlane AE. Public attitudes to the use in research of personal health information from general practitioners’ records a survey of the Irish general public. J Med Ethics. 2011;37:50-5.
26. King T, Brankovic L, Gillard P. Perspectives of Australian adults about protecting the privacy of their information in statistical databases. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81:279-89.
27. Aitken, M., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Pagliari, C. Moving from trust to trustworthiness: Experiences of public engagement in the Scottish Health Informatics Programme. Sci Public Policy. 2016. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scv075.
28. Campbell B, Thomson H, Slater J, Coward C, Wyatt K, Sweeney K. Extracting information from hospital records: what patients think about consent. Qual Safety Health Care. 2007;16:404-8.
29. Chalmers J, Muir R. Patient Privacy and Confidentiality: The debate goes on; the issues are complex but a consensus is emerging. Br Med J. 2003;326:725-6.
30. Verity C, Nicoll A. Consent, confidentiality and the threat to public health surveillance. Br Med J. 2002;324:1210-3.
31. Strobl J, Cave E, Walley T. Data Protection Legislation: Interpretation and barriers to research. Br Med J. 2000;321:890-2.
32. Ohm P. Broken promises of privacy: responding to the surprising failure of anonymity. UCLA Law Rev. 2010;57:1701-77.
33. ICO. Anonymisation: managing data protection risk code of practice. Cheshire: Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO); 2012.
34. Haddow G, Bruce A, Sathanandam S, Wyatt JC. “Nothing is really safe”: a focus group study on the processes of anonymizing and sharing of health data for research purposes. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(6):1140-6.
35. Damschroder LJ, Pritts JL, Neblo MA, Kalarickal RJ, Creswell JW, Hayward RA. Patients, privacy and trust: Patients’ willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(1):223-35.
36. Gross AG. The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Underst Sci. 1994;3:3-23.
37. Booth, A.Cochrane or cock-eyed? How should we conduct systematic reviews of qualitative research? 2001; http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001724.htm. Accessed 03 Nov 2016.
38. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Classifying the findings in qualitative studies. Qual Health Res. 2003;13(17):905-23.