Secondary research use of personal medical data: attitudes from patient and population surveys in The Netherlands and Germany

被引:0
作者
Gesine Richter
Christoph Borzikowsky
Wiebke Lesch
Sebastian C. Semler
Eline M. Bunnik
Alena Buyx
Michael Krawczak
机构
[1] Kiel University,Institute of Experimental Medicine, Division of Biomedical Ethics
[2] University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein,Institute of Medical Informatics und Statistics
[3] Kiel University,Department of Medical Ethics
[4] University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein,Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine
[5] Technologies,undefined
[6] Methods and Infrastructure for Networked Medical Research (TMF e.V.),undefined
[7] Philosophy and History of Medicine,undefined
[8] Erasmus MC,undefined
[9] Technical University of Munich,undefined
来源
European Journal of Human Genetics | 2021年 / 29卷
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Making routine clinical-care-data available for medical research requires adequate consent to legitimize use and exchange. While, public interest in supporting medical research is increasing, individuals often find it difficult to actively enable researchers to access their data. In addition to broad consent, the idea of (consent-free) data donation has been brought into play as another way to legitimize secondary research use of medial data. However, flanking the implementation of broad consent policies or data donation, the attitude of patients, and the general public toward different aspects of these approaches needs to be assessed. We conducted two empirical studies to this end among Dutch patients (n = 7430) and representative German citizens (n = 1006). Wide acceptance of broad consent was observed among Dutch patients (92.3%), corroborating previous findings among German patients (93.0%). Moreover, 28.8% of the Dutch patients generally approved secondary data-use for non-academic research, 42.3% would make their decision dependent upon the type of institution in question. In the German survey addressing the general population, 78.8% approved data donation without explicit consent as an alternative model of legitimization, the majority of those who approved (96.7%) would allow donated data to be used by universities and public research institutions. This willingness to support contrasted sharply with the fact that only 16.6% would allow access to the data by industry. Our findings thus not only add empirical evidence to the debate about broad consent and data donation, but also suggest that widespread public discussion and education about the role of industry in medical research is necessary in that context.
引用
收藏
页码:495 / 502
页数:7
相关论文
共 62 条
  • [1] Semler SC(2018)German medical informatics initiative Methods Inf Med 57 e50-56
  • [2] Wissing F(2016)Breite Einwilligung (broad consent) zur Biobank-Forschung – die ethische Debatte Ethik Med 28 311-25
  • [3] Heyder R(2016)Part II: Harmonizing privacy laws to enable international biobank research J Law Med Ethics 44 7-172.
  • [4] Richter G(2016)The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship [published correction appears in Sci Data. 2019;:6] Sci Data 3 e1001950-82
  • [5] Buyx A(2016)Sharing clinical trial data: a proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors PLoS Med 13 76-7
  • [6] Rothstein MA(2018)Broad consent for health care-embedded biobanking: understanding and reasons to donate in a large patient sample Genet Med 20 841-87
  • [7] Knoppers BM(2019)Patient views on research use of clinical data without consent: legal, but also acceptable? Eur J Hum Genet 27 1357-32
  • [8] Wilkinson MD(2019)Enabling posthumous medical data donation: an appeal for the ethical utilisation of personal health data Sci Eng Ethics 25 13-23
  • [9] Dumontier M(2009)The applicability of widely‐employed frameworks in cross‐cultural management research J Acad Res Econ 1 3-33
  • [10] Aalbersberg IJ(2003)Measurement equivalence of 10 value types from the Schwartz value survey across 21 countries J Cross Psychol 34 123-54