iCONCUR: Informed consent for clinical data and bio-sample use for research

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 380-387

  Kim, Hyeoneui ^a   Bell, Elizabeth ^a   Kim, Jihoon ^a   Sitapati, Amy ^a,b   Ramsdell, Joe ^b   Farcas, Claudiu ^a   Friedman, Dexter ^c   Feupe, Stephanie Feudjio ^a   Ohno Machado, Lucila ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

EHR data use for research; Informed consent; Tiered informed consent

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOMETRY; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; FAMILY STUDY; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNAL MEDICINE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NONHUMAN; OUTPATIENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PROFIT; RECIPIENT; SATISFACTION; SCIENTIST; ETHICS; EVALUATION STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; SOCIOECONOMICS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 85016275331     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocw115     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Cummings SR. Interactive informed consent: randomized comparison with paper consents. PLoS One 2013;8(3):e58603.
2. Simon CM, Klein DW, Schartz HA. Traditional and electronic informed consent for biobanking: a survey of U.S. biobanks. Biopreservation and biobanking 2014;12(6):423-9.
3. Sanderson IC, Obeid JS, Madathil KC, et al. Managing clinical research permissions electronically: A novel approach to enhancing recruitment and managing consents. In: Clinical Trials 2013th ed. London, England; 2013;10(4):604-11.
4. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, Morrison M, Teare H, Melham K. Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet 2015;23:141-6.
5. FDA. Use of Electronic Informed Consent in Clinical Investigations. Questions and Answers: Guidance for Industry. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2015. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm436811.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2016.
6. NCVHS National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics. Recommendations Regarding Sensitive Health Information. Available from: http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/101110lt.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2015.
7. Caine K, Hanania R. Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013;20(1):7-15.
8. Bell E, Ohno-Machado L, Grando A. Sharing my health data: a survey of data sharing preferences of healthy individuals. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings; American Medical Informatics Association 2014; 2014:1699-708.
9. Kurtz R, Bell E, Kim H. Exactly what kind of patient data do they use in research?: analysis of clinical data requests for research. Abstract Available from: https://knowledge.amia.org/56638-amia-1.1540970/t-005-1. 1543914/f-005-1.1543915/a-408-1.1544447/an-408-1.1544448. Accessed April 3, 2016.
10. Chow S-C, Wang H, Shao J. Sample size calculations in clinical research In: Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman&Hall/CRC; 2008.
11. Campos-Castillo C, Anthony DL. The double-edged sword of electronic health records: implications for patient disclosure. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014;22:e130-40.
12. Caine K, Tierney WM. Point and counterpoint: patient control of access to data in their electronic health records. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30(Suppl 1):38-41.
13. Meaningful Consent Overview j Providers & Professionals j HealthIT.gov [Internet]. Available from: https://www.healthit.gov/providers-professio nals/meaningful-consent-overview. Accessed April 7, 2016.
14. Goldstein MM, Rein AL, Hughes PP, Lappas JK, Weinstein SA. Consumer consent options for electronic health information exchange: policy considerations and analysis. Available from: http://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/choicemodelfinal032610.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2016.
15. Paris A, Brandt C, Cornu C, Maison P, Thalamas C, Cracowski J-L. Informed consent document improvement does not increase patients' comprehension in biomedical research. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2010;69(3):231-7.
16. Sugarman J, Paasche-Orlow M. Confirming comprehension of informed consent as a protection of human subjects. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21(8):898-9.
17. Wirshing DA, Wirshing WC, Marder SR, Liberman RP, Mintz J. Informed consent: assessment of comprehension. Am J Psychiatry 1998;155(11):1508-11.
18. Lemaire R. Informed consent-a contemporary myth? J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88(1):2-7.
19. Newman JT, Smart A, Reese TR, Williams A, Moss M. Surrogate and patient discrepancy regarding consent for critical care research. Crit Care Med 2012;40(9):2590-4.
20. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93(2):139-47.
21. Kelly SE, Spector TD, Cherkas LF, Prainsack B, Harris JM. Evaluating the consent preferences of UK research volunteers for genetic and clinical studies. In: Bayer A, ed. PLoS One 2015;10(3):e0118027.
22. Hoberman A, Shaikh N, Bhatnagar S, et al. What factors influence parental decisions to participate in clinical research: consenters versus non-consenters. JAMA Pediatr 20131;167(6):561-6.
23. Platt J, Bollinger J, Dvoskin R, Kardia SLR, Kaufman D. Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in populationbased genomic research. Genet Med 2014;16(1):11-8.
24. Allen C, Heider A, Lyman KA, et al. Data governance and data sharing agreements for community-wide health information exchange: lessons from the beacon communities. EGEMS (Washington, DC). 2014;2(1):1057.
25. Fleming J, Otlowski M, Stewart C, Kerridge I, Critchley C. Attitudes of the general public towards the disclosure of individual research results and incidental findings from biobank genomic research in Australia. Intern Med 2015;45(12):1274-9.
26. Mamo LA, Browe DK, Logan HC, Kim KK. Patient informed governance of distributed research networks: results and discussion from six patient focus groups. In: Proceedings of AMIA Annual Symposium; American Medical Informatics Association; 2013:920-9.
27. Kim KK, Ohno-Machado L. Comparison of consumers' views on electronic data sharing for healthcare and research. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015;22(4):821-30.
28. Whiddett R, Hunter I, Engelbrecht J, Handy J. Patients' attitudes towards sharing their health information. Int J Med Inform 2006;75(7): 530-41.
29. Toccaceli V, Fagnani C, Stazi MA. Medical records confidentiality and public health research: two values at stake? an italian aurvey focus on individual preferences. J Public Health Res 2015;4(1):401.
30. Kimura M, Nakaya J, Watanabe H, Shimizu T, Nakayasu K. A survey aimed at general citizens of the US and Japan about their attitudes toward electronic medical data handling. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014;11(5):4572-88.
31. Schwartz PH, Caine K, Alpert SA, Meslin EM, Carroll AE, Tierney WM. Patient preferences in controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2014;30:25-30.
32. McGuire AL, Oliver JM, Slashinski MJ, et al. To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research. Genet Med 2011;13(11):948-55.
33. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372:793-5.