Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons

Principles for Health Information Collection, Sharing, and Use: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association

The evolution of the electronic health record, combined with advances in data curation and analytic technologies, increasingly enables data sharing and harmonization. Advances in the analysis of health-related and health-proxy information have already accelerated research discoveries and improved patient care. This American Heart Association policy statement discusses how broad data sharing can be an enabling driver of progress by providing data to develop, test, and benchmark innovative methods, scalable insights, and potential new paradigms for data storage and workflow. Along with these advances come concerns about the sensitive nature of some health data, equity considerations about the involvement of historically excluded communities, and the complex intersection of laws attempting to govern behavior. Data-sharing principles are therefore necessary across a wide swath of entities, including parties who collect health information, funders, researchers, patients, legislatures, commercial companies, and regulatory departments and agencies. This policy statement outlines some of the key equity and legal background relevant to health data sharing and responsible management. It then articulates principles that will guide the American Heart Association's engagement in public policy related to data collection, sharing, and use to continue to inform its work across the research enterprise, as well as specific examples of how these principles might be applied in the policy landscape. The goal of these principles is to improve policy to support the use or reuse of health information in ways that are respectful of patients and research participants, equitable in impact in terms of both risks and potential benefits, and beneficial across broad and demographically diverse communities in the United States.

Lessons learned during the process of reporting individual genomic results to participants of a population-based biobank

The return of individual genomic results (ROR) to research participants is still in its early phase, and insight on how individuals respond to ROR is scarce. Studies contributing to the evidence base for best practices are crucial before these can be established. Here, we describe a ROR procedure conducted at a population-based biobank, followed by surveying the responses of almost 3000 participants to a range of results, and discuss lessons learned from the process, with the aim of facilitating large-scale expansion. Overall, participants perceived the information that they received with counseling as valuable, even when the reporting of high risks initially caused worry. The face-to-face delivery of results limited the number of participants who received results. Although the participants highly valued this type of communication, additional means of communication need to be considered to improve the feasibility of large-scale ROR. The feedback collected sheds light on the value judgements of the participants and on potential responses to the receipt of genetic risk information. Biobanks in other countries are planning or conducting similar projects, and the sharing of lessons learned may provide valuable insight and aid such endeavors.

Fresh takes on five health data sharing domains: Quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability

As entities around the world invest in repositories and other infrastructure to facilitate health data sharing, scalable solutions to data sharing challenges are needed. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 experts to explore views on potential issues and policy options related to health data sharing. In this Perspective, we describe and contextualize unconventional insights shared by our interviewees relevant to issues in five domains: data quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability. These insights question a focus on granular quality metrics for gatekeeping; challenge enthusiasm for maximalist risk disclosure practices; call attention to power dynamics that potentially compromise the patient's voice; encourage faith in the sharing proclivities of new generations of scientists; and endorse accounting for personal disposition in the selection of long-term partners. We consider the merits of each insight with the broad goal of encouraging creative thinking to address data sharing challenges.

Mining the Data: Exploring Rural Patients' Attitudes about the Use of Their Personal Information in Research

BACKGROUND

This study examines rural patients' perceived importance of knowing or being consulted about researchers' access and use of their personal data (identifiable and de-identified health information, and identifiable and de-identified non-health information) across five scenarios. This study also examines their views on stewardship or governance of their personal information by researchers in their healthcare systems.

METHODS

We conducted a survey by mail. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted across each scenario and type of personal data with the same variables included in each model.

RESULTS

The majority of participants said it was "very important/absolutely essential" to know the purpose of the study, to be asked every time, and to know the policies governing researcher access and use of their identifiable health information. Just over two-thirds of respondents thought it "very important/absolutely essential" to know who serves on the data governance committee and to have a community member serve. Distrust in healthcare organizations was positively correlated with the scenarios while willingness to give permission to donate leftover biological specimens was negatively correlated.

CONCLUSION

Our study findings indicate that the type of personal information being accessed and used generally matters to 1,407 patients living in rural Pennsylvania. We also demonstrate that knowing their healthcare organizations' governance policies and practices for managing their personal data is important to many rural Pennsylvania patients. Biomedical researchers need to recognize and attend to those differences as much as possible in order to expand opportunities for and participation in research by residents of these rural communities.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at.

The Current Landscape of Research Advocacy and Education for Patients with Colorectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Research advocacy is an evolving concept and should be tailored for the colorectal cancer research community. Research advocacy training and evaluation must be designed for the patient community with their insight included at each step of engagement, training, and implementation. Patient advocates bring a great deal of expertise to the research review process, but it is important to ensure that their insight is appropriately placed, and they bring an appropriate orientation to the research process as the most informed patient. This can be accomplished in part by providing advocates with the proper training, employing universal core competencies, and applying principles of adult learning. Additionally, the research community, advocacy organizations, and industry partners must understand the need to diversify the voices that are being leveraged to guide research, recognizing the importance of adequate mental health tools and compensation commensurate with their experience. As a community, it is necessary that we create and implement training programs, as well as evaluate and measure their impact to continually improve and tailor the delivery of this specific education. Research advocacy has become a necessity to the field, and when implemented effectively, research advocates can have a significant impact on the delivery of health care research, improving health outcomes for all those affected by colorectal cancer.

How NFTs could transform health information exchange

[Figure: see text].

National Institutes of Mental Health Data Archive: Privacy, Consent, and Diversity Considerations and Options for Improvement

Data sharing is essential to further advance the field of neuropsychiatry. However, it raises significant ethical issues in the domains of privacy, consent, and diversity. We begin by considering the sensitive nature of much neuropsychiatric data. Next, we review relevant policies of the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), a prominent funder in this field. Because data sharing in neuropsychiatry is in its infancy and rapidly evolving, the NIMH policies serve as a helpful starting point for examining ethical considerations related to the collection and distribution of neuropsychiatric data. However, we find gaps in their guidance in each of the three key ethical domains. Finally, we illustrate how examination of lessons and strategies from other contexts where sustained attention has already been given to these ethical issues may add value by suggesting specific opportunities for improvement. In particular, we highlight approaches including a three-tiered data access scheme, use of technology to enhance the data sharing component of the informed consent process, and evidence-based, targeted recruitment of underrepresented populations to support diverse data resources. Assessment of current policy and potentially helpful innovations in other fields is a necessary step in moving the field forward in an ethically responsible manner.

Public involvement in the governance of population-level biomedical research: unresolved questions and future directions

Population-level biomedical research offers new opportunities to improve population health, but also raises new challenges to traditional systems of research governance and ethical oversight. Partly in response to these challenges, various models of public involvement in research are being introduced. Yet, the ways in which public involvement should meet governance challenges are not well understood. We conducted a qualitative study with 36 experts and stakeholders using the World Café method to identify key governance challenges and explore how public involvement can meet these challenges. This brief report discusses four cross-cutting themes from the study: the need to move beyond individual consent; issues in benefit and data sharing; the challenge of delineating and understanding publics; and the goal of clarifying justifications for public involvement. The report aims to provide a starting point for making sense of the relationship between public involvement and the governance of population-level biomedical research, showing connections, potential solutions and issues arising at their intersection. We suggest that, in population-level biomedical research, there is a pressing need for a shift away from conventional governance frameworks focused on the individual and towards a focus on collectives, as well as to foreground ethical issues around social justice and develop ways to address cultural diversity, value pluralism and competing stakeholder interests. There are many unresolved questions around how this shift could be realised, but these unresolved questions should form the basis for developing justificatory accounts and frameworks for suitable collective models of public involvement in population-level biomedical research governance.

The Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub: Protocol to Develop Extended COVID-19 Surveillance and Trial Platforms

BACKGROUND

Routinely recorded primary care data have been used for many years by sentinel networks for surveillance. More recently, real world data have been used for a wider range of research projects to support rapid, inexpensive clinical trials. Because the partial national lockdown in the United Kingdom due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in decreasing community disease incidence, much larger numbers of general practices are needed to deliver effective COVID-19 surveillance and contribute to in-pandemic clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this protocol is to describe the rapid design and development of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub (ORCHID) and its first two platforms. The Surveillance Platform will provide extended primary care surveillance, while the Trials Platform is a streamlined clinical trials platform that will be integrated into routine primary care practice.

METHODS

We will apply the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) metadata principles to a new, integrated digital health hub that will extract routinely collected general practice electronic health data for use in clinical trials and provide enhanced communicable disease surveillance. The hub will be findable through membership in Health Data Research UK and European metadata repositories. Accessibility through an online application system will provide access to study-ready data sets or developed custom data sets. Interoperability will be facilitated by fixed linkage to other key sources such as Hospital Episodes Statistics and the Office of National Statistics using pseudonymized data. All semantic descriptors (ie, ontologies) and code used for analysis will be made available to accelerate analyses. We will also make data available using common data models, starting with the US Food and Drug Administration Sentinel and Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership approaches, to facilitate international studies. The Surveillance Platform will provide access to data for health protection and promotion work as authorized through agreements between Oxford, the Royal College of General Practitioners, and Public Health England. All studies using the Trials Platform will go through appropriate ethical and other regulatory approval processes.

RESULTS

The hub will be a bottom-up, professionally led network that will provide benefits for member practices, our health service, and the population served. Data will only be used for SQUIRE (surveillance, quality improvement, research, and education) purposes. We have already received positive responses from practices, and the number of practices in the network has doubled to over 1150 since February 2020. COVID-19 surveillance has resulted in tripling of the number of virology sites to 293 (target 300), which has aided the collection of the largest ever weekly total of surveillance swabs in the United Kingdom as well as over 3000 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology samples. Practices are recruiting to the PRINCIPLE (Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older PeopLE) trial, and these participants will be followed up through ORCHID. These initial outputs demonstrate the feasibility of ORCHID to provide an extended national digital health hub.

CONCLUSIONS

ORCHID will provide equitable and innovative use of big data through a professionally led national primary care network and the application of FAIR principles. The secure data hub will host routinely collected general practice data linked to other key health care repositories for clinical trials and support enhanced in situ surveillance without always requiring large volume data extracts. ORCHID will support rapid data extraction, analysis, and dissemination with the aim of improving future research and development in general practice to positively impact patient care.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/19773.

Ethics of Using and Sharing Clinical Imaging Data for Artificial Intelligence: A Proposed Framework

In this article, the authors propose an ethical framework for using and sharing clinical data for the development of artificial intelligence (AI) applications. The philosophical premise is as follows: when clinical data are used to provide care, the primary purpose for acquiring the data is fulfilled. At that point, clinical data should be treated as a form of public good, to be used for the benefit of future patients. In their 2013 article, Faden et al argued that all who participate in the health care system, including patients, have a moral obligation to contribute to improving that system. The authors extend that framework to questions surrounding the secondary use of clinical data for AI applications. Specifically, the authors propose that all individuals and entities with access to clinical data become data stewards, with fiduciary (or trust) responsibilities to patients to carefully safeguard patient privacy, and to the public to ensure that the data are made widely available for the development of knowledge and tools to benefit future patients. According to this framework, the authors maintain that it is unethical for providers to "sell" clinical data to other parties by granting access to clinical data, especially under exclusive arrangements, in exchange for monetary or in-kind payments that exceed costs. The authors also propose that patient consent is not required before the data are used for secondary purposes when obtaining such consent is prohibitively costly or burdensome, as long as mechanisms are in place to ensure that ethical standards are strictly followed. Rather than debate whether patients or provider organizations "own" the data, the authors propose that clinical data are not owned at all in the traditional sense, but rather that all who interact with or control the data have an obligation to ensure that the data are used for the benefit of future patients and society.

What is a Medical Information Commons?

A 2011 National Academies of Sciences report called for an "Information Commons" and a "Knowledge Network" to revolutionize biomedical research and clinical care. We interviewed 41 expert stakeholders to examine governance, access, data collection, and privacy in the context of a medical information commons. Stakeholders' attitudes about MICs align with the NAS vision of an Information Commons; however, differences of opinion regarding clinical use and access warrant further research to explore policy and technological solutions.

The Role of Participants in a Medical Information Commons

Meaningful participant engagement has been identified as a key contributor to the success of efforts to share data via a "Medical Information Commons" (MIC). We present findings from expert stakeholder interviews aimed at understanding barriers to engagement and the appropriate role of MIC participants. Although most interviewees supported engagement, they distinguished between individual versus collective forms. They also noted challenges including representation and perceived inefficiency, prompting reflection on political aspects of engagement and efficiency concerns.

Genomic Data-Sharing Practices

Making data broadly accessible is essential to creating a medical information commons (MIC). Transparency about data-sharing practices can cultivate trust among prospective and existing MIC participants. We present an analysis of 34 initiatives sharing DNA-derived data based on public information. We describe data-sharing practices captured, including practices related to consent, privacy and security, data access, oversight, and participant engagement. Our results reveal that data-sharing initiatives have some distance to go in achieving transparency.