Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2016 · 111 citations · 26 references
EngineeringHealth Data ProtectionLawConfidentialityHealth Data SharingResearch EthicsHealth Data PrivacyInformation PrivacyData ScienceDigital HealthBioethicsPublic HealthEthical UseData ManagementPatient DataHealth PolicyData Science AllowData PrivacyInformation EthicElectronic Health RecordsElectronic Health RecordHealth Information TechnologyMedical EthicsMedical RecordsEasy RescueMedical PrivacyInformed ConsentHealth DataPersonal Health RecordHealth Informatics
Electronic health records hold vast, sensitive data that can advance public health research, yet privacy safeguards and consent requirements create selection bias and limit access. The authors contend that access to health data is a conflict between confidentiality and beneficence, and they propose a risk‑adapted framework to ethically facilitate data use. They distinguish minimal‑risk from higher‑risk studies and argue that the duty of easy rescue justifies waiving consent for minimally risky records‑based research. The paper concludes that removing consent for low‑risk studies, grounded in the duty of easy rescue, can reduce bias and enable broader societal benefit.
Advances in data science allow for sophisticated analysis of increasingly large datasets. In the medical context, large volumes of data collected for healthcare purposes are contained in electronic health records (EHRs). The real-life character and sheer amount of data contained in them make EHRs an attractive resource for public health and biomedical research. However, medical records contain sensitive information that could be misused by third parties. Medical confidentiality and respect for patients' privacy and autonomy protect patient data, barring access to health records unless consent is given by the data subject. This creates a situation in which much of the beneficial records-based research is prevented from being used or is seriously undermined, because the refusal of consent by some patients introduces a systematic deviation, known as selection bias, from a representative sample of the general population, thus distorting research findings. Although research exemptions for the requirement of informed consent exist, they are rarely used in practice due to concerns over liability and a general culture of caution. In this paper, we argue that the problem of research access to sensitive data can be understood as a tension between the medical duties of confidentiality and beneficence. We attempt to show that the requirement of informed consent is not appropriate for all kinds of records-based research by distinguishing studies involving minimal risk from those that feature moderate or greater risks. We argue that the duty of easy rescue-the principle that persons should benefit others when this can be done at no or minimal risk to themselves-grounds the removal of consent requirements for minimally risky records-based research. Drawing on this discussion, we propose a risk-adapted framework for the facilitation of ethical uses of health data for the benefit of society.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.
26
U.S. Department of Health and Human · Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy · 2015 · 889 citations
C. Safran, M. Bloomrosen, W. Ed Hammond et al. · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2006 · 711 citations · Full text
Health Care Experiences, Primary Care, Public Health Informatics +16
Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg code
Jochen Vollmann, Rolf Winau · BMJ · 1996 · 448 citations