GDPR: an impediment to research?

Use of participant data and biological samples is insufficiently described in participant information leaflets

BACKGROUND

With greater availability of participant data and biobank repositories following clinical trial completion, adequately describing future data and biological sample reuse plans to trial participants is increasingly important. We evaluated how trial teams currently describe current and future use of participant data and biological samples in participant information leaflets (PILs).

METHODS

Retrospective qualitative analysis of 240 PILs (182 clinical trials) in Ireland and the UK. Descriptions of data and sample use/reuse were extracted and analyzed using a 4-stage pragmatic content analysis approach. A recommended list of questions to be addressed by trial teams when designing PILs was developed.

RESULTS

Of the 240 included PILs, 85% specifically mentioned, or directly implied, how confidentiality of participant data would be maintained; 38% were considered by the authors to adequately describe how data confidentiality would be maintained (ie, the PIL specifically mentioned data deidentification and compliance with data protection regulations); 47% reported the intended duration of data storage (mean 15; SD ± 9 years); 40% specified if data would be used in future research studies and 28% stated if data would be shared with other researchers. Of the 117 PILs stating biological samples would be collected from participants, 80% provided a reason for requesting the sample, 66% stated whether stored samples would be deidentified, 21% specified if individual-level results would be made available to participants and 70% specified whether samples may be used for future studies. Of the 73 PILs specifying planned future sample storage, 18% stated the intended duration of storage and 48% specified if samples would be shared with other researchers. A list of 8 recommended questions to be addressed by trial teams when designing PILs were identified, for example, 'What is the intended duration of data and sample storage for the current study?'.

CONCLUSIONS

PILs often provide insufficient detail regarding plans for current use and future reuse of participants' data and their biological samples. The majority do not adequately describe plans for maintaining data confidentiality. Best practice approaches to describing data use and reuse in PILs are needed. This will require multistakeholder input, including potential trial participants to progress this.

Sharing sensitive data in life sciences: an overview of centralized and federated approaches

Biomedical data are generated and collected from various sources, including medical imaging, laboratory tests and genome sequencing. Sharing these data for research can help address unmet health needs, contribute to scientific breakthroughs, accelerate the development of more effective treatments and inform public health policy. Due to the potential sensitivity of such data, however, privacy concerns have led to policies that restrict data sharing. In addition, sharing sensitive data requires a secure and robust infrastructure with appropriate storage solutions. Here, we examine and compare the centralized and federated data sharing models through the prism of five large-scale and real-world use cases of strategic significance within the European data sharing landscape: the French Health Data Hub, the BBMRI-ERIC Colorectal Cancer Cohort, the federated European Genome-phenome Archive, the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership/OHDSI network and the EBRAINS Medical Informatics Platform. Our analysis indicates that centralized models facilitate data linkage, harmonization and interoperability, while federated models facilitate scaling up and legal compliance, as the data typically reside on the data generator's premises, allowing for better control of how data are shared. This comparative study thus offers guidance on the selection of the most appropriate sharing strategy for sensitive datasets and provides key insights for informed decision-making in data sharing efforts.

Protocol Development for a Qualitative Methodological Study Within a Trial (Qual-SWAT): The KARMA-Dep-2 Trial

Background

Despite methodological improvements in clinical trial design and conduct more generally, methodological limitations persist in trials concerning mental health care. A qualitative Study Within A Trial (Qual-SWAT), embedded in the KARMA-Dep-2 host trial, will be undertaken to explore and gain an understanding of two methodological questions in randomised trials specific to mental health care: (1) what are the key barriers and enablers of participation in randomised trials in mental health; and (2) how can randomised trials become part of routine mental health care. These issues will be examined from patient-participant and clinician- / researcher-participant perspectives, in alignment with PRioRiTy research themes.

Methods

A descriptive qualitative study design will be used. Data will be collected via one-to-one semi-structured interviews, conducted via Microsoft Teams. The interview data will be analysed using Braun and Clarke's Thematic Analysis approach. One-to-one interviews will be conducted with three participant groups ( N = 30): 1) host trial patient-participants ( n = 10); 2) potentially eligible host trial patient-participants who refused enrolment in the host trial ( n = 10); and 3) clinician- / researcher-participants who are associated with work on the host trial ( n = 10).

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval has been granted by St. Patrick's Mental Health Services Research Ethics Committee, Ireland (Ref: Protocol 09/20). When the study is completed, a report will be prepared and submitted to the Health Research Board (HRB). Findings will be shared with the host trial team and study participants, and submitted for publication.

Host trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04939649); EudraCT ( 2019-003109-92). Official title: Ketamine as an Adjunctive Therapy for Major Depression - A Randomised Controlled Trial: [KARMA-Dep (2)].

Protocol Development for a Qualitative Methodological Study Within a Trial (Qual-SWAT): The KARMA-Dep-2 Trial

Background

Despite methodological improvements in clinical trial design and conduct more generally, methodological limitations persist in trials concerning mental health care. A qualitative Study Within A Trial (Qual-SWAT), embedded in the KARMA-Dep-2 host trial, will be undertaken to explore and gain an understanding of two methodological questions in randomised trials specific to mental health care: (1) what are the key barriers and enablers of participation in randomised trials in mental health; and (2) how can randomised trials become part of routine mental health care. These issues will be examined from patient-participant and clinician- / researcher-participant perspectives, in alignment with PRioRiTy research themes.

Methods

A descriptive qualitative study design will be used. Data will be collected via one-to-one semi-structured interviews, conducted via Microsoft Teams. The interview data will be analysed using Braun and Clarke's Thematic Analysis approach. One-to-one interviews will be conducted with three participant groups ( N = 30): 1) host trial patient-participants ( n = 10); 2) potentially eligible host trial patient-participants who refused enrolment in the host trial ( n = 10); and 3) clinician- / researcher-participants who are associated with work on the host trial ( n = 10).

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval has been granted by St. Patrick's Mental Health Services Research Ethics Committee, Ireland (Ref: Protocol 09/20). When the study is completed, a report will be prepared and submitted to the Health Research Board (HRB). Findings will be shared with the host trial team and study participants, and submitted for publication.

Host trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04939649); EudraCT ( 2019-003109-92). Official title: Ketamine as an Adjunctive Therapy for Major Depression - A Randomised Controlled Trial: [KARMA-Dep (2)].

Comparing Decentralized Learning Methods for Health Data Models to Nondecentralized Alternatives: Protocol for a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Considering the soaring health-related costs directed toward a growing, aging, and comorbid population, the health sector needs effective data-driven interventions while managing rising care costs. While health interventions using data mining have become more robust and adopted, they often demand high-quality big data. However, growing privacy concerns have hindered large-scale data sharing. In parallel, recently introduced legal instruments require complex implementations, especially when it comes to biomedical data. New privacy-preserving technologies, such as decentralized learning, make it possible to create health models without mobilizing data sets by using distributed computation principles. Several multinational partnerships, including a recent agreement between the United States and the European Union, are adopting these techniques for next-generation data science. While these approaches are promising, there is no clear and robust evidence synthesis of health care applications.

OBJECTIVE

The main aim is to compare the performance among health data models (eg, automated diagnosis and mortality prediction) developed using decentralized learning approaches (eg, federated and blockchain) to those using centralized or local methods. Secondary aims are comparing the privacy compromise and resource use among model architectures.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic review using the first-ever registered research protocol for this topic following a robust search methodology, including several biomedical and computational databases. This work will compare health data models differing in development architecture, grouping them according to their clinical applications. For reporting purposes, a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 flow diagram will be presented. CHARMS (Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies)-based forms will be used for data extraction and to assess the risk of bias, alongside PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool). All effect measures in the original studies will be reported.

RESULTS

The queries and data extractions are expected to start on February 28, 2023, and end by July 31, 2023. The research protocol was registered with PROSPERO, under the number 393126, on February 3, 2023. With this protocol, we detail how we will conduct the systematic review. With that study, we aim to summarize the progress and findings from state-of-the-art decentralized learning models in health care in comparison to their local and centralized counterparts. Results are expected to clarify the consensuses and heterogeneities reported and help guide the research and development of new robust and sustainable applications to address the health data privacy problem, with applicability in real-world settings.

CONCLUSIONS

We expect to clearly present the status quo of these privacy-preserving technologies in health care. With this robust synthesis of the currently available scientific evidence, the review will inform health technology assessment and evidence-based decisions, from health professionals, data scientists, and policy makers alike. Importantly, it should also guide the development and application of new tools in service of patients' privacy and future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 393126; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=393126.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/45823.

Survey on Open Science Practices in Functional Neuroimaging

Replicability and reproducibility of scientific findings is paramount for sustainable progress in neuroscience. Preregistration of the hypotheses and methods of an empirical study before analysis, the sharing of primary research data, and compliance with data standards such as the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS), are considered effective practices to secure progress and to substantiate quality of research. We investigated the current level of adoption of open science practices in neuroimaging and the difficulties that prevent researchers from using them. Email invitations to participate in the survey were sent to addresses received through a PubMed search of human functional magnetic resonance imaging studies that were published between 2010 and 2020. 283 persons completed the questionnaire. Although half of the participants were experienced with preregistration, the willingness to preregister studies in the future was modest. The majority of participants had experience with the sharing of primary neuroimaging data. Most of the participants were interested in implementing a standardized data structure such as BIDS in their labs. Based on demographic variables, we compared participants on seven subscales, which had been generated through factor analysis. Exploratory analyses found that experienced researchers at lower career level had higher fear of being transparent and researchers with residence in the EU had a higher need for data governance. Additionally, researchers at medical faculties as compared to other university faculties reported a more unsupportive supervisor with regards to open science practices and a higher need for data governance. The results suggest growing adoption of open science practices but also highlight a number of important impediments.

Enablers and barriers to the secondary use of health data in Europe: general data protection regulation perspective

Background

The General Data Protection Regulation is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy in the European Union. We aimed to provide an overview of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enablers and barriers to the secondary use of health data in Europe from the research we conducted in the Joint Action InfAct (Information for Action!) WP10 Assessing and piloting interoperability for public health policy, as well as to provide an example of a national-level case study on experiences with secondary use of health data and GDPR on an example of the Austrian COVID-19 data platform.

Methods

We have identified a number of European initiatives, projects and organizations that have dealt with cross-border health data sharing, linkage and management by desk research and we conducted 17 semi-structured in-depth interviews and analyzed the interview transcripts by framework analysis.

Results

GDPR was seen as an enabler to the secondary use of health data in Europe when it comes to user rights over their data, pre-existing laws regarding data privacy and data sharing, sharing anonymized statistics, developing new data analysis approaches, patients` trust towards dealing with their health data and transparency. GDPR was seen as a barrier to the secondary use of health data in Europe when it comes to identifiable and individual-level data, data sharing, time needed to complete the process, workload increase, differences with local legal legislations, different (and stricter) interpretations and access to data.

Conclusion

The results of our analysis show that GDPR acts as both an enabler and a barrier for the secondary use of health data in Europe. More research is needed to better understand the effects of GDPR on the secondary use of health data which can serve as a basis for future changes in the regulation.

Remote and at-home data collection: Considerations for the NIH HEALthy Brain and Cognitive Development (HBCD) study

The NIH HEALthy Brain and Cognitive Development (HBCD) study aims to characterize the impact of in utero exposure to substances, and related environmental exposures on child neurodevelopment and health outcomes. A key focus of HBCD is opioid exposure, which has disproportionately affected rural areas. While most opioid use and neonatal abstinence syndrome has been reported outside of large cities, rural communities are often under-represented in large-scale clinical research studies that involve neuroimaging, in-person assessments, or bio-specimen collections. Thus, there exists a likely mismatch between the communities that are the focus of HBCD and those that can participate. Even geographically proximal participants, however, are likely to bias towards higher socioeconomic status given the anticipated study burden and visit frequency. Wearables, ‘nearables’, and other consumer biosensors, however, are increasingly capable of collecting continuous physiologic and environmental exposure data, facilitating remote assessment. We review the potential of these technologies for remote in situ data collection, and the ability to engage rural, affected communities. While not necessarily a replacement, these technologies offer a compelling complement to traditional ‘gold standard’ lab-based methods, with significant potential to expand the study’s reach and importance.

“Data is the new oil”: citizen science and informed consent in an era of researchers handling of an economically valuable resource

As with other areas of the social world, academic research in the contemporary healthcare setting has undergone adaptation and change. For example, research methods are increasingly incorporating citizen participation in the research process, and there has been an increase in collaborative research that brings academic and industry partners together. There have been numerous positive outcomes associated with both of these growing methodological and collaborative processes; nonetheless, both bring with them ethical considerations that require careful thought and attention. This paper addresses the ethical considerations that research teams must consider when using participatory methods and/or when working with industry and outlines a novel informed consent matrix designed to maintain the high ethical standard to which academic research in the healthcare arena has traditionally adhered.

Biosafety and biobanking: Current understanding and knowledge gaps

Infectious disease outbreaks, such as 'Coronavirus disease 2019' (COVID-19), can constitute major global health threats with far-reaching consequences. As outbreaks develop, the international scientific community must provide high-quality scientific research-ready biological samples to solve the existing clinical and epidemiological questions to better combat the pandemic. Such examples are provided by dedicated biobank facilities, the latter collecting increasingly high volumes of biological samples. However, the more significant concentrations of infectious or potentially infectious biological materials can create a safety risk. The current short report describes the first attempt to identify the published scientific works on biobanking and safety. Three broad thematic areas have been identified: the physical security relevant to staff and sample integrity, the data safety aspects, and the governance parameters relating to the previous two. While the current publications reflect a broad alignment with existing standards and best practices in the biobanking field, they also demonstrate an opportunity for further in-depth work on this field in the post-COVID-19 era.

General data protection regulations (2018) and clinical research: perspectives of patients and doctors in an Irish university teaching hospital

Background

Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, is a set of data protection rules on the acquisition, storage, use, and access of personal data. GDPR came into effect in May 2018 when it was introduced across all 27 European Union (EU) member states and the European Economic Area (EEA). Maintaining compliance with this legislation has presented significant new challenges for ongoing clinical research.

Aims

To evaluate the knowledge and expectations of patients and doctors regarding GDPR and implications for future clinical research.

Methods

An anonymous 12-item questionnaire was circulated to patients and doctors at a University Teaching Hospital. Data analysis included descriptive statistics.

Results

Five hundred nine participants were included: 261 females (51.3%) and 248 males (48.7%). Three hundred fifty were patients (68.8%) and 159 were doctors (31.2%). Three hundred thirty-four participants were aware of GDPR (65.7%): 116 doctors (73.0%) and 218 patients (62.3%, P = 0.018). 71.1% of doctors were willing to allow their personal data to be processed anonymously as part of a clinical research project compared to 43.4% of patients (P < 0.001). 80.2% of patients believed explicit consent is needed before using personal data in clinical research in comparison to 60.4% of doctors (P < 0.001). Level of education impacted awareness of GDPR (P < 0.001); a higher level of education among patients increased GDPR familiarity (P < 0.001), however failed to impact doctor familiarity (P = 0.117).

Conclusion

GDPR has introduced complexity to the processing and sharing of personal data among researchers. This study has identified differences in the perception of GDPR and willingness to consent to data being used in clinical research between doctors and patients. Measures to adequately inform prospective research participants on data processing and the evolving landscape of data protection regulation should be prioritised.

The promise of artificial intelligence: a review of the opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in healthcare

INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are rapidly evolving fields in various sectors, including healthcare. This article reviews AI's present applications in healthcare, including its benefits, limitations and future scope.

SOURCES OF DATA

A review of the English literature was conducted with search terms 'AI' or 'ML' or 'deep learning' and 'healthcare' or 'medicine' using PubMED and Google Scholar from 2000-2021.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

AI could transform physician workflow and patient care through its applications, from assisting physicians and replacing administrative tasks to augmenting medical knowledge.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

From challenges training ML systems to unclear accountability, AI's implementation is difficult and incremental at best. Physicians also lack understanding of what AI implementation could represent.

GROWING POINTS

AI can ultimately prove beneficial in healthcare, but requires meticulous governance similar to the governance of physician conduct.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Regulatory guidelines are needed on how to safely implement and assess AI technology, alongside further research into the specific capabilities and limitations of its medical use.

A Global Perspective on Testing Infants Online: Introducing ManyBabies-AtHome

Online testing holds great promise for infant scientists. It could increase participant diversity, improve reproducibility and collaborative possibilities, and reduce costs for researchers and participants. However, despite the rise of platforms and participant databases, little work has been done to overcome the challenges of making this approach available to researchers across the world. In this paper, we elaborate on the benefits of online infant testing from a global perspective and identify challenges for the international community that have been outside of the scope of previous literature. Furthermore, we introduce ManyBabies-AtHome, an international, multi-lab collaboration that is actively working to facilitate practical and technical aspects of online testing and address ethical concerns regarding data storage and protection, and cross-cultural variation. The ultimate goal of this collaboration is to improve the method of testing infants online and make it globally available.

Exploring the prevalence and profile of epilepsy across Europe using a standard retrospective chart review: Challenges and opportunities

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of epilepsy in four European countries (Austria, Denmark, Ireland, and Romania) employing a standard methodology. The study was conducted under the auspices of ESBACE (European Study on the Burden and Care of Epilepsy).

METHODS

All hospitals and general practitioners serving a region of at least 50 000 persons in each country were asked to identify patients living in the region who had a diagnosis of epilepsy or experienced a single unprovoked seizure. Medical records were accessed, where available, to complete a standardized case report form. Data were sought on seizure frequency, seizure type, investigations, etiology, comorbidities, and use of antiseizure medication. Cases were validated in each country, and the degree of certainty was graded as definite, probable, or suspect cases.

RESULTS

From a total population of 237 757 in the four countries, 1988 (.8%) patients were identified as potential cases of epilepsy. Due to legal and ethical issues in the individual countries, medical records were available for only 1208 patients, and among these, 113 had insufficient clinical information. The remaining 1095 cases were classified as either definite (n = 706, 64.5%), probable (n = 191, 17.4%), suspect (n = 153, 14.0%), or not epilepsy (n = 45, 4.1%).

SIGNIFICANCE

Although a precise prevalence estimate could not be generated from these data, the study found a high validity of epilepsy classification among evaluated cases (95.9%). More generally, this study highlights the significant challenges facing epidemiological research methodologies that are reliant on patient consent and retrospective chart review, largely due to the introduction of data protection legislation during the study period. Documentation of the epilepsy diagnosis was, in some cases, relatively low, indicating a need for improved guidelines for assessment, follow-up, and documentation. This study highlights the need to address the concerns and requirements of recruitment sites to engage in epidemiological research.

An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff

Background

The process of informed consent for enrolment to a clinical research study can be complex for both participants and research staff. Challenges include respecting the potential participant’s autonomy and information needs while simultaneously providing adequate information to enable an informed decision. Qualitative research with small sample sizes has added to our understanding of these challenges. However, there is value in garnering the perspectives of research participants and staff across larger samples to explore the impact of contextual factors (time spent, the timing of the discussion and the setting), on the informed consent process.

Methods

Research staff and research participants from Ireland and the UK were invited to complete an anonymous survey by post or online (research participants) and online (research staff). The surveys aimed to quantify the perceptions of research participants and staff regarding some contextual factors about the process of informed consent. The survey, which contained 14 and 16 multiple choice questions for research participants and staff respectively, was analysed using descriptive statistics. Both surveys included one optional, open-ended question, which were analysed thematically.

Results

Research participants (169) and research staff (115) completed the survey. Research participants were predominantly positive about the informed consent process but highlighted the importance of having sufficient time and the value of providing follow-up once the study concludes, e.g. providing results to participants. Most staff (74.4%) staff reported that they felt very confident or confident facilitating informed consent discussions, but 63% felt information leaflets were too long and/or complicated, 56% were concerned about whether participants had understood complex information and 40% felt that time constraints were a barrier. A dominant theme from the open-ended responses to the staff survey was the importance of adequate time and resources.

Conclusions

Research participants in this study were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of the informed consent process. However, research staff expressed concern about how much participants have understood and studies of patient comprehension of research study information would seem to confirm these fears. This study highlights the importance of allocating adequate time to informed consent discussions, and research staff could consider using Teach Back techniques.

Trial Registration

Not applicable

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05493-1.

Using administrative health data for palliative and end of life care research in Ireland: potential and challenges

Background: This study aims to examine the potential of currently available administrative health and social care data for palliative and end-of-life care (PEoLC) research in Ireland. Objectives include to i) identify data sources for PEoLC research ii) describe the challenges and opportunities of using these and iii) evaluate the impact of recent health system reforms and changes to data protection laws.

Methods: The 2017 Health Information and Quality Authority catalogue of health and social care datasets was cross-referenced with a recognised list of diseases with associated palliative care needs. Criteria to assess the datasets included population coverage, data collected, data dictionary and data model availability, and mechanisms for data access.

Results: Nine datasets with potential for PEoLC research were identified, including death certificate data, hospital episode data, pharmacy claims data,  one national survey, four disease registries (cancer, cystic fibrosis, motor neurone and interstitial lung disease) and a national renal transplant registry.  The ad hoc development of the health system in Ireland has resulted in i) a fragmented information infrastructure resulting in gaps in data collections particularly in the primary and community care sector where much palliative care is delivered, ii) ill-defined data governance arrangements across service providers, many of whom are not part of the publically funded health service and iii) systemic and temporal issues that affect data quality. Initiatives to improve data collections include introduction of i) patient unique identifiers, ii) health entity identifiers and iii) integration of the Eircode postcodes. Recently enacted general data protection and health research regulations will clarify legal and ethical requirements for data use.

Conclusions: Ongoing reform initiatives and recent changes to data privacy laws combined with detailed knowledge of the datasets, appropriate permissions, and good study design will facilitate future use of administrative health and social care data for PEoLC research in Ireland.

Preparing accessible and understandable clinical research participant information leaflets and consent forms: a set of guidelines from an expert consensus conference

BACKGROUND

In line with Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki, it is the investigator's responsibility to ensure that research participants are sufficiently informed, to enable the provision of informed consent. The Participant Information Leaflet/Informed Consent Form is key to facilitating this communication process. Although studies have indicated that clinical research Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms are not optimal in terms of accessibility, there is little or no specific guidance available. The aim of this research was to propose and agree a set of guidelines for academic researchers and sponsors for preparing accessible and understandable Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms.

METHODS

A literature review identified guidance for the preparation of patient-facing documents. Following critical appraisal, key recommendations were extracted and a set of recommendations which can be applied to clinical research Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms were prepared. These recommendations were evaluated and amended by an Expert Consensus Conference consisting of a group of key stakeholders. The stakeholders included members of a Research Ethics Committee (both lay and expert), a patient advocate, experienced clinical researchers, a plain English editor and a Data Protection Officer. Consensus was reached regarding a final set of recommendations.

RESULTS

44 recommendations were agreed upon and grouped into five categories: Layout, Formatting, Content, Language and Confirming Readability. These recommendations aimed to maximize accessibility for lay participants, including readers with dyslexia, literacy or numeracy challenges, thereby improving the quality of the consent process.

CONCLUSIONS

More empirical research is needed to further improve the informed consent process for research participants. However, these recommendations are informed by the current literature and have been ratified by expert stakeholders. It is hoped that these recommendations will help investigators and sponsors to consistently and efficiently produce more accessible clinical research Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms.

Using linked administrative health data for palliative and end of life care research in Ireland: potential and challenges

Background: This study aims to examine the potential of currently available administrative health data for palliative and end-of-life care (PEoLC) research in Ireland. Objectives include to i) identify administrative health data sources for PEoLC research ii) describe the challenges and opportunities of using these and iii) estimate  the impact of recent health system reforms and changes to data protection laws.  Methods: The 2017 Health Information and Quality Authority catalogue of health and social care datasets was cross-referenced with a recognised list of diseases with associated palliative care needs. Criteria to assess the datasets included population coverage, data collected, data dictionary and data model availability and mechanisms for data access. Results: Eight datasets with potential for PEoLC research were identified, including four disease registries, (cancer, cystic fibrosis, motor neurone and interstitial lung disease), death certificate data, hospital episode data, community prescription data and one national survey. The ad hoc development of the health system in Ireland has resulted in i) a fragmented information infrastructure resulting in gaps in data collections particularly in the primary and community care sector where much palliative care is delivered, ii) ill-defined data governance arrangements across service providers, many of whom are not part of the publically funded health service and iii) systemic and temporal issues that affect data quality. Initiatives to improve data collections include introduction of i) patient unique identifiers, ii) health entity identifiers and iii) integration of the eircode postcodes. Recently enacted general data protection and health research regulations will clarify legal and ethical requirements for data  use. Conclusions: With appropriate permissions, detailed knowledge of the datasets and good study design currently available administrative health data can be used for PEoLC research. Ongoing reform initiatives and recent changes to data privacy laws will facilitate future use of administrative health data for PEoLC research.

Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis

OBJECTIVES

The first aim of this study was to quantify the difficulty level of clinical research Patient Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms (PILs/ICFs) using validated and widely used readability criteria which provide a broad assessment of written communication. The second aim was to compare these findings with best practice guidelines.

DESIGN

Retrospective, quantitative analysis of clinical research PILs/ICFs provided by academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies and investigators.

SETTING

PILs/ICFs which had received Research Ethics Committee approval in the last 5 years were collected from Ireland and the UK.

INTERVENTION

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PILs/ICFs were evaluated against seven validated readability criteria (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesh Kincaid Grade Level, Simplified Measure of Gobbledegook, Gunning Fog, Fry, Raygor and New Dale Chall). The documents were also scored according to two health literacy-based criteria: the Clear Communication Index (CCI) and the Suitability Assessment of Materials tool. Finally, the documents were assessed for compliance with six best practice metrics from literacy agencies.

RESULTS

A total of 176 PILs were collected, of which 154 were evaluable. None of the PILs/ICFs had the mean reading age of <12 years recommended by the American Medical Association. 7.1% of PILs/ICFs were evaluated as 'Plain English', 40.3%: 'Fairly Difficult', 51.3%: 'Difficult' and 1.3%: 'Very Difficult'. No PILs/ICFs achieved a CCI >90. Only two documents complied with all six best practice literacy metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

When assessed against both traditional readability criteria and health literacy-based tools, the PILs/ICFs in this study are inappropriately complex. There is also evidence of poor compliance with guidelines produced by literacy agencies. These data clearly evidence the need for improved documentation to underpin the consent process.

Contributory factors to the evolution of the concept and practice of informed consent in clinical research: A narrative review

Informed consent can be defined as a freely-given decision or agreement following disclosure of relevant information. This review explores how legislation surrounding informed consent has impacted upon clinical research practices, with a focus on clinical trials involving individuals with the capacity to give consent in the non-emergency setting. We also highlight the challenges which remain with the informed consent process, including those which exist in the era of data protection legislation and genetic research. Modern ethicists agree that informed consent encompasses three principal factors: disclosure of information, capacity for decision making, and voluntariness. In the context of clinical research, informed consent is now required by regulatory and ethical frameworks as well as by law, and various guidelines govern the practice of informed consent, including the Declaration of Helsinki and the Good Clinical Practice Guidelines. Historically, however, researchers acted paternalistically and included participants in research without their knowledge or consent. Following societal and political revolution, an autonomy model of consent became prevalent, and individuals became free to make individual choices about whether to participate. Despite this, it is also recognized that an individual's community has a role in supporting their decision making, and this may be a strong influence, particularly within some societies. Research scandals and controversies and whistle-blowers which exposed unethical practices in the area of informed consent also contributed to changes in societal attitudes and legislation changed as a result. Medical journals also have an established, although indirect, role in strengthening good practices surrounding informed consent.

Population health monitoring: an essential public health field in motion

BACKGROUND

Population health monitoring, the regular and institutionalized production and dissemination of information and knowledge about the health status of a population, is an essential element of public health. Nevertheless, while epidemiology and biostatistics, for example, are well-recognized disciplines, this does not (yet) apply to population health monitoring. Over the past decade, however, it has matured as a distinct field of expertise.

OBJECTIVES

This paper presents a comprehensive model for population health monitoring and describes its current status as a field of expertise. It concludes with an overview of the most important developments that are likely to shape the health information systems and population health monitoring practices of the future.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Combining the information pyramid (an application of the data-information-knowledge-wisdom hierarchy), describing outputs, and a so-called monitoring chain, describing activities, results in a comprehensive model for population health monitoring. The steps of the activity chain can be viewed as a stairway by which the information pyramid is climbed, reaching evidence-informed policymaking at the top. Population health monitoring has several inherent strengths, such as its high societal relevance; its integrative, comprehensive, and structured approach; and the fact that it makes use of routinely collected data. In practice, however, secondary use of routine data is often hampered by technical, motivational, economic, political, ethical, and legal barriers. Important developments that will shape health information systems and population health monitoring practices of the future include digitalization and data-driven technology, citizen science, and the growing need for intersectoral approaches. Population health monitoring practice will need to adapt in order to counteract the risks and reap the benefits that these developments hold.

What GDPR and the Health Research Regulations (HRRs) mean for Ireland: "explicit consent"-a legal analysis

Background

Irish Health Research Regulations (HRRs) were introduced following the commencement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018. The HRRs set out supplementary regulatory requirements for research. A legal analysis presented under the auspices of the Irish Academy of Medical Sciences (IAMS) on April 8 and November 25, 2019 at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland welcomed the introduction of GDPR and the HRRs. The analysis found the GDPR “explicit consent” introduced by the HRRs is problematic. A call was made to regulate informed consent in line with the common law as an achievable alternative safeguard, bringing Ireland in line with other EU Member States.

Aims

This article aims to review academic papers, legal opinion, EU opinion and advice and data protection law in relation to research and explicit consent, in order to examine the legal burden of GDPR and the HRRs on health research in Ireland and to determine whether the analysis presented at the IAMS meetings is reflected more widely in legal text.

Methods

Legal literature review of academic papers, legal opinion, EU opinion and advice and data protection legislation.

Results

The legal literature review overwhelmingly supports the concerns raised.

Conclusions

Our results confirm the GDPR explicit consent requirement of the HRRs is having had a significantly negative and far-reaching impact on the conduct of health research in Ireland. Urgent review of the HRRs and meaningful engagement between the health research community and legislators in healthcare is required.

What GDPR and the Health Research Regulations (HRRs) mean for Ireland: a research perspective

Background

Irish Health Research Regulations (HRRs) were introduced following the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018. The HRRs described specific supplementary regulatory requirements for research regarding governance, processes and procedure that impact on several facets of research. The numerous problems that the HRRs and particularly “explicit consent” inadvertently created were presented under the auspices of the Irish Academy of Medical Sciences (IAMS) on November 25, 2019, at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.

Aims

The objective of this review was to obtain feedback and to examine the impact of GDPR and the HRRs on health research in Ireland in order to determine whether the preliminary feedback, presented at the IAMS meetings, was reflected at a national level.

Methods

Individuals from the research community were invited to provide feedback on the impact, if any, of the HRRs on health research. Retrospective patient recruitment and consent outside a hospital setting for a multi-institutional Breast Predict study (funded by the Irish Cancer Society) were also analysed.

Results

Feedback replicated the issues presented at the IAMS with additional concerns identified. Only 20% of the original target population (n = 1987) could be included in the Breast Predict study.

Conclusions

Our results confirm that the HRRs have had a significantly negative impact on health research in Ireland. Urgent meaningful engagement between patient advocate groups, the research community and legislators would help ameliorate these impacts.

Survey of NCHDs in Ireland to assess their views and opinions in relation to participation in health research and the impact of new Irish data protection regulations

BACKGROUND

Since August 2018, Irish health research is regulated by the European General Data Protection Act (GDPR) 2016 with the (Irish) Data Protection Act and Health Research Regulations (HRR) 2018. The Irish application of GDPR has been criticised by consultants and academics as overly restrictive; however, Non-consultant Hospital Doctor's (NCHD's) perspectives have not been explored.

OBJECTIVES/AIMS

This project aimed to collect the views of NCHDs in Ireland in relation to health research and the impact of GDPR and HRR. Internationally barriers to engagement with health research have been identified; however, to our knowledge, no previous studies have been conducted in Ireland.

METHODS

Agreeable Irish specialty colleges and faculties distributed an online survey to their NCHDs. Social media platforms were also used to promote the survey. All data collected was anonymised.

RESULTS

A total of 192 NCHDs completed the survey; respondents included doctors from 13 specialties, with representation from each NCHD grade. Ninety-nine percent had previously participated in research, and 87% acknowledged the importance for doctors to be involved in research. Forty-four percent of NCHDs stated they would consider travelling abroad to complete research. Eighty-six percent agreed training relating to the new regulations would be useful; however, only 25% had received training.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that NCHDs in Ireland are enthusiastic about engaging in research. The majority acknowledge the value of research in career development. Engaging in research abroad could be further explored as a factor impacting emigration. Our findings show that NCHDs in Ireland are concerned about the impact of GDPR and HRR and are seeking further training.

Challenges of international oncology trial collaboration-a call to action

International collaboration in oncology trials has the potential to enhance clinical trial activity by expediting the recruitment of large patient populations, testing treatments in diverse populations and facilitating the study of rare tumours or specific molecular subtypes. However, a number of challenges continue to hinder the efficient and productive conduct of both commercial and non-commercial international clinical trials. These challenges include complex and burdensome regulatory requirements, the high cost of conducting trials, and logistical challenges associated with ethics review, drug supply and biospecimen collection and management. We propose solutions to promote oncology trial collaboration, such as regulatory reform, harmonisation of trial initiation and management processes and greater recognition and funding of academic (non-commercial) clinical trials. It is only through coordinated effort and leadership from researchers, regulators and those responsible for health systems that the full potential of international trial collaboration can be realised.