A systematic literature review of attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: a focus on consent

Researchers' perceptions of the trustworthiness, for reuse purposes, of government health data in Victoria, Australia: Implications for policy and practice

In 2022 the Australian Data Availability and Transparency Act (DATA) commenced, enabling accredited "data users" to access data from "accredited data service providers." However, the DATA Scheme lacks guidance on "trustworthiness" of the data to be utilised for reuse purposes. Objectives: To determine: (i) Do researchers using government health datasets trust the data? (ii) What factors influence their perceptions of data trustworthiness? and (iii) What are the implications for government and data custodians? Method: Authors of published studies (2008-2020) that utilised Victorian government health datasets were surveyed via a case study approach. Twenty-eight trust constructs (identified via literature review) were grouped into data factors, management properties and provider factors. Results: Fifty experienced health researchers responded. Most (88%) believed that Victorian government health data were trustworthy. When grouped, data factors and management properties were more important than data provider factors in building trust. The most important individual trust constructs were: "compliant with ethical regulation" (100%) and "monitoring privacy and confidentiality" (98%). Constructs of least importance were knowledge of "participant consent" (56%) and "major focus of the data provider was research" (50%). Conclusion: Overall, the researchers trusted government health data, but data factors and data management properties were more important than data provider factors in building trust. Implications: Government should ensure the DATA Scheme incorporates mechanisms to validate those data utilised by accredited data users and data providers have sufficient quality (intrinsic and extrinsic) to meet the requirements of "trustworthiness," and that evidentiary documentation is provided to support these "accredited data."

Implementation Science and Practice-Oriented Research: Convergence and Complementarity

Implementation science is the scientific study of methods to promote the uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices in routine care, with the goal of improving the quality and effectiveness of health services (Bauer et al., 2015). In addition to this common goal, practice-oriented psychotherapy research (and researchers) and implementation science (and scientists) share a common focus on the people and the places where treatment happens. Thus, there exists strong potential for combining these two approaches. In this article, we provide a primer on implementation science for psychotherapy researchers and highlight important areas and examples of convergence and complementarity between implementation science and practice-oriented psychotherapy research. Specifically, we (a) define and describe the core features of implementation science; (b) discuss similarities and areas of complementarity between implementation science and practice-oriented psychotherapy research; (c) discuss a case example that exemplifies the integration of implementation science and practice-oriented research; and (d) propose directions for future research and collaborations that leverage both implementation science and practice-oriented research.

Attitude towards consent-free research use of personal medical data in the general German population

Background

The design of appropriate consent procedures for the secondary use of personal health data is a key concern of current medical research. In Germany, the concept of 'data donation' has recently come into focus, defined as a legal entitlement to the research use of personal medical data without prior consent, combined with an easy-to-exercise right of the data subjects to opt-out.

Methods

Standardized online interviews of 3,013 individuals, representative of the German online population, were conducted in August 2022 to determine their attitude towards data donation for medical research.

Results

A majority of participants supported a consent-free data donation regulation, both for publicly funded (85.1%) and for private medical research (66.4%). Major predictors of a positive attitude towards data donation included (i) sufficient appreciation of the respective kind of research (i.e. public or private), (ii) a reciprocity attitude that patients who benefit from research have a duty to support research, and (iii) sufficient trust in data protection and data control.

Conclusion

People's attitude towards data donation to medical research is generally positive in Germany and depends upon factors that can be curbed by legislation and internal rules of procedure. Worthy of note, designing data donation in the form of an opt-out regulation does not necessarily mean that the paradigm of informedness has to be abandoned. Rather the process of information provision must be shifted towards the creation of basic knowledge in the general population about the risks and benefits of data-intensive medical research ('health data literacy').

The knowledge and reuse practices of researchers utilising government health information assets, Victoria, Australia, 2008-2020

BACKGROUND

Using government health datasets for secondary purposes is widespread; however, little is known on researchers' knowledge and reuse practices within Australia.

OBJECTIVES

To explore researchers' knowledge and experience of governance processes, and their data reuse practices, when using Victorian government health datasets for research between 2008-2020.

METHOD

A cross-sectional quantitative survey was conducted with authors who utilised selected Victorian, Australia, government health datasets for peer-reviewed research published between 2008-2020. Information was collected on researchers': data reuse practices; knowledge of government health information assets; perceptions of data trustworthiness for reuse; and demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

When researchers used government health datasets, 45% linked their data, 45% found the data access process easy and 27% found it difficult. Government-curated datasets were significantly more difficult to access compared to other-agency curated datasets (p = 0.009). Many respondents received their data in less than six months (58%), in aggregated or de-identified form (76%). Most reported performing their own data validation checks (70%). To assist in data reuse, almost 71% of researchers utilised (or created) contextual documentation, 69% a data dictionary, and 62% limitations documentation. Almost 20% of respondents were not aware if data quality information existed for the dataset they had accessed. Researchers reported data was managed by custodians with rigorous confidentiality/privacy processes (94%) and good data quality processes (76%), yet half lacked knowledge of what these processes entailed. Many respondents (78%) were unaware if dataset owners had obtained consent from the dataset subjects for research applications of the data.

CONCLUSION

Confidentiality/privacy processes and quality control activities undertaken by data custodians were well-regarded. Many respondents included data linkage to additional government datasets in their research. Ease of data access was variable. Some documentation types were well provided and used, but improvement is required for the provision of data quality statements and limitations documentation. Provision of information on participants' informed consent in a dataset is required.

Community views on the secondary use of general practice data: Findings from a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

General practice data, particularly when combined with hospital and other health service data through data linkage, are increasingly being used for quality assurance, evaluation, health service planning and research. In this study, we explored community views on sharing general practice data for secondary purposes, including research, to establish what concerns and conditions need to be addressed in the process of developing a social licence to support such use.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods approach with focus groups (November-December 2021), followed by a cross-sectional survey (March-April 2022).

RESULTS

The participants in this study strongly supported sharing general practice data with the clinicians responsible for their care, and where there were direct benefits for individual patients. Over 90% of survey participants (N = 2604) were willing to share their general practice information to directly support their health care, that is, for the primary purpose of collection. There was less support for sharing data for secondary purposes such as research and health service planning (36% and 45% respectively in broad agreement) or for linking general practice data to data in the education, social services and criminal justice systems (30%-36%). A substantial minority of participants were unsure or could not see how benefits would arise from sharing data for secondary purposes. Participants were concerned about the potential for privacy breaches, discrimination and data misuse and they wanted greater transparency and an opportunity to consent to data release.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that the public may be more concerned about sharing general practice data for secondary purposes than they are about sharing data collected in other settings. Sharing general practice data more broadly will require careful attention to patient and public concerns, including focusing on the factors that will sustain trust and legitimacy in general practice and GPs.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Members of the public were participants in the study. Data produced from their participation generated study findings.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Public and Patients' Perspectives Towards Data and Sample Sharing for Research: An Overview of Empirical Findings

We aimed to review the attitudes and perspectives of the public and patients towards the sharing of data and biospecimens for research and to identify common dimensions, regardless of setting. Our review included systematic, scoping or thematic reviews of empirical studies retrieved from Medline (PubMed interface), Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane Reviews. The main themes identified and synthesised across the 14 reviews were readiness and motivations; potential risks and safeguards; trust, transparency and accountability; autonomy and preferred type of consent; and factors influencing data and biospecimen sharing and consent. Sociodemographic factors and research and individual context remain relevant influencing factors in all settings, while preferences for types of consent are highly heterogeneous. Trusted environments and adapted consent options with participant engagement are relevant to improve research participation.

Research integrity in randomized clinical trials: A scoping umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are experiencing a crisis of confidence in their trustworthiness. Although a comprehensive literature search yielded several reviews on RCT integrity, an overarching overview is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The authors undertook a scoping umbrella review of the research integrity literature concerning RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/3ursn), two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, without language or time restrictions, until November 2021. The authors included systematic reviews covering any aspect of research integrity throughout the RCT lifecycle.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors assessed methodological quality using a modified AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool and collated the main findings.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 55 relevant reviews, summarizing 6001 studies (median per review, 63; range, 8-1106) from 1964 to 2021, had an overall critically low quality of 96% (53 reviews). Topics covered included general aspects (15%), design and approval (22%), conduct and monitoring (11%), reporting (38%), postpublication concerns (2%), and future research (13%). The most common integrity issues covered were ethics (18%) and transparency (18%).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality reviews identified various integrity issues across the RCT lifecycle, emphasizing the importance of high ethical standards and professionalism while highlighting gaps in the integrity landscape. Multistakeholder consensus is needed to develop specific RCT integrity standards.

COVID-19 trials were not more likely to report intent to share individual data than non-COVID-19 trials in ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVES

To compare intent to share individual participant data (IPD) between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov between 01/09/2020, and 01/03/2021. We also evaluated factors independently associated with intent to share IPD and whether intent to share IPD has improved as compared with the prepandemic period.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all interventional phase 3 studies registered between 01/09/2020, and 01/03/2021. Then, we identified COVID-19 trials and selected a random sample of non-COVID-19 trials with a ratio 2:1. We compared the intent to share IPD between these trials and with 292 trials registered between 01/12/2019, and 01/03/2020 (prepandemic period).

RESULTS

We included 148 COVID-19 trials and 296 non-COVID-19 trials. Intent to share IPD did not significantly differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 trials (22.3% vs. 27.0%, P = 0.3). Intent to share IPD was independently associated with industry-sponsorship (odds ratio [OR] = 2.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.65-5.27) and location in the United States (OR = 2.93; 95% CI: 1.64-5.41) or the European Union (OR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.03-4.19). The intent to share IPD has not significantly improved compared with the prepandemic period (P = 0.16).

CONCLUSION

Data-sharing intent at registration does not seem better for COVID-19 trials.

Patient Perspectives and Preferences for Consent in the Digital Health Context: State-of-the-art Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The increasing integration of digital health tools into care may result in a greater flow of personal health information (PHI) between patients and providers. Although privacy legislation governs how entities may collect, use, or share PHI, such legislation has not kept pace with digital health innovations, resulting in a lack of guidance on implementing meaningful consent. Understanding patient perspectives when implementing meaningful consent is critical to ensure that it meets their needs. Consent for research in the context of digital health is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This state-of-the-art review aimed to understand the current state of research as it relates to patient perspectives on digital health consent. Its objectives were to explore what is known about the patient perspective and experience with digital health consent and provide recommendations on designing and implementing digital health consent based on the findings.

METHODS

A structured literature search was developed and deployed in 4 electronic databases-MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science-for articles published after January 2010. The initial literature search was conducted in March 2021 and updated in March 2022. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they discussed electronic consent or consent, focused on the patient perspective or preference, and were related to digital health or digital PHI. Data were extracted using an extraction template and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 75 articles were included for analysis. Most studies were published within the last 5 years (58/75, 77%) and conducted in a clinical care context (33/75, 44%) and in the United States (48/75, 64%). Most studies aimed to understand participants' willingness to share PHI (25/75, 33%) and participants' perceived usability and comprehension of an electronic consent notice (25/75, 33%). More than half (40/75, 53%) of the studies did not describe the type of consent model used. The broad open consent model was the most explored (11/75, 15%). Of the 75 studies, 68 (91%) found that participants were willing to provide consent; however, their consent behaviors and preferences were context-dependent. Common patient consent requirements included clear and digestible information detailing who can access PHI, for what purpose their PHI will be used, and how privacy will be ensured.

CONCLUSIONS

There is growing interest in understanding the patient perspective on digital health consent in the context of providing clinical care. There is evidence suggesting that many patients are willing to consent for various purposes, especially when there is greater transparency on how the PHI is used and oversight mechanisms are in place. Providing this transparency is critical for fostering trust in digital health tools and the innovative uses of data to optimize health and system outcomes.

Setting up a Governance Framework for Secondary Use of Routine Health Data in Nursing Homes: Development Study Using Qualitative Interviews

BACKGROUND

In the nursing home sector, reusing routinely recorded data from electronic health records (EHRs) for knowledge development and quality improvement is still in its infancy. Trust in appropriate and responsible reuse is crucial for patients and nursing homes deciding whether to share EHR data for these purposes. A data governance framework determines who may access the data, under what conditions, and for what purposes. This can help obtain that trust. Although increasing attention is being paid to data governance in the health care sector, little guidance is available on development and implementation of a data governance framework in practice.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to describe the development process of a governance framework for the "Registry Learning from Data in Nursing Homes," a national registry for EHR data on care delivered by nursing home physicians (in Dutch: specialist ouderengeneeskunde) in Dutch nursing homes-to allow data reusage for research and quality improvement of care.

METHODS

Relevant stakeholders representing practices, policies, and research in the nursing home sector were identified. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 people from 14 stakeholder organizations. The main aim of the interviews was to explore stakeholders' perspectives regarding the Registry's aim, data access criteria, and governing bodies' tasks and composition. Interview topics and analyses were guided by 8 principles regarding governance for reusing health data, as described in the literature. Interview results, together with legal advice and consensus discussions by the Registry's consortium partners, were used to shape the rules, regulations, and governing bodies of the governance framework.

RESULTS

Stakeholders valued the involvement of nursing home residents and their representatives, nursing home physicians, nursing homes' boards of directors, and scientists and saw this as a prerequisite for a trustworthy data governance framework. For the Registry, involvement of these groups can be achieved through a procedure in which residents can provide their consent or objection to the reuse of the data, transparency about the decisions made, and providing them a position in a governing body. In addition, a data request approval procedure based on predefined assessment criteria indicates that data reuse by third parties aligns with the aims of the Registry, benefits the nursing home sector, and protects the privacy of data subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

The stakeholders' views, expertise, and knowledge of other frameworks and relevant legislation serve to inform the application of governance principles to the contexts of both the nursing home sector and the Netherlands. Many different stakeholders were involved in the development of the Registry Learning from Data in Nursing Homes' governance framework and will continue to be involved. Engagement of the full range of stakeholders in an early stage of governance framework development is important to generate trust in appropriate and responsible data reuse.

Perception of clinical research among patients and healthy volunteers of clinical trials

Purpose

Clinical research relies on data from patients and volunteers, yet the target sample size is often not achieved. Here, we assessed the perception of clinical research among clinical trial participants to improve the recruitment process for future studies.

Methods

We conducted a single-center descriptive and exploratory study of 300 current or former participants in various phase I–III clinical trials. Questionnaires were either distributed to current clinical trial participants or emailed to former subjects.

Results

Subjects strongly agreed or agreed that contributing to improving medical care (> 81%), contributing to scientific research (> 79%), and trusting their treating physicians (> 77%) were motives for study participation. Among healthy volunteers, financial motives positively correlated with the number of clinical trials they had participated in (p < 0.05). Higher age positively correlated with expectation of best available treatment during study participation among patients (p < 0.05). Less than 8% of all subjects expressed “great concern” about the potential risks of sharing their personal information as part of the study. Subjects displayed “great trust” or “trust” in medical staff (86.6%) and in government research institutions (76.4%), and “very little trust” or “little trust” in pharmaceutical companies (35.4%) and health insurance companies (16.9%).

Conclusion

Altruistic motives and trust in treating physicians were predominant motives for clinical trial participation. Older patients expected to receive the best available treatment during participation. Healthy volunteers who reported financial motives had participated in more clinical trials. Consistent with great trust in medical staff and government research institutions, little concern was expressed about the misuse of personal data during the trial.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00228-022-03366-3.

Attitudes of Australian breast cancer patients toward the secondary use of administrative and clinical trial data

AIM

Little is known about the attitudes of Australian patients with a history of breast cancer toward the reuse of administrative health data and clinical trial data. Issues of consent, privacy, and information security are key to the discussion. Cancer care and research provides an opportune setting to develop an understanding of attitudes toward data sharing and reuse in individuals with a history of breast cancer.

METHODS

An anonymous, online questionnaire for individuals with a history or diagnosis of breast cancer was distributed by two peak bodies (Breast Cancer Trials [BCT] and Breast Cancer Network of Australia [BCNA]) to their memberships between July 14, 2020 and October 17, 2020. Results were captured in RedCap; data analysis was undertaken using Stata, and a thematic analysis of free text responses was undertaken using NVivo.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-two complete responses were received. Twenty-three percent of respondents had participated in a clinical trial, and 12% were currently receiving treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, or endocrine). Respondents were supportive of the secondary use of de-identified administrative health data and clinical trial data, but showed concern about data security and privacy. Respondents emphasized that the reuse of data should be for improved societal health outcomes, not profit. Many assumed secondary analysis was already undertaken on de-identified administrative health data and clinical trial data.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents were supportive of the secondary use of de-identified administrative health and clinal trial data within the established bounds of good clinical practice and ethical oversight.

Research based on existing clinical data and biospecimens: a systematic study of patients' opinions

Background

The aim of the present survey was to investigate newly discharged hospital patients’ opinions on secondary use of their hospital data and biospecimens within the context of health research in general and, more specifically, on genetic research, data sharing across borders and cooperation with the health industry.

Methods

A paper questionnaire was sent to 1049 consecutive newly discharged hospital patients.

Results

The vast majority of the respondents preferred to be informed (passive consent) or to receive no notification at all for secondary research on their health data and biospecimens (88% and 91% for data and biospecimens respectively). The rest wanted to be asked for active consent. The same trend applied for the other aspects also. 81% of respondents were positive towards genetic research without active consent. 95% were positive towards cooperating with the health industry, and 90% were positive towards data sharing.

Conclusions

These results suggest that hospital patients generally are very positive to secondary research and support the concept of opting out rather than opting in.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00799-4.

Electronic Health Record-Triggered Research Infrastructure Combining Real-world Electronic Health Record Data and Patient-Reported Outcomes to Detect Benefits, Risks, and Impact of Medication: Development Study

Background

Real-world data from electronic health records (EHRs) represent a wealth of information for studying the benefits and risks of medical treatment. However, they are limited in scope and should be complemented by information from the patient perspective.

Objective

The aim of this study is to develop an innovative research infrastructure that combines information from EHRs with patient experiences reported in questionnaires to monitor the risks and benefits of medical treatment.

Methods

We focused on the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) in general practice as a use case. To develop the Benefit, Risk, and Impact of Medication Monitor (BRIMM) infrastructure, we first performed a requirement analysis. BRIMM’s starting point is routinely recorded general practice EHR data that are sent to the Dutch Nivel Primary Care Database weekly. Patients with OAB were flagged weekly on the basis of diagnoses and prescriptions. They were invited subsequently for participation by their general practitioner (GP), via a trusted third party. Patients received a series of questionnaires on disease status, pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, adverse drug reactions, drug adherence, and quality of life. The questionnaires and a dedicated feedback portal were developed in collaboration with a patient association for pelvic-related diseases, Bekkenbodem4All. Participating patients and GPs received feedback. An expert meeting was organized to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the new research infrastructure.

Results

The BRIMM infrastructure was developed and implemented. In the Nivel Primary Care Database, 2933 patients with OAB from 27 general practices were flagged. GPs selected 1636 (55.78%) patients who were eligible for the study, of whom 295 (18.0% of eligible patients) completed the first questionnaire. A total of 288 (97.6%) patients consented to the linkage of their questionnaire data with their EHR data. According to experts, the strengths of the infrastructure were the linkage of patient-reported outcomes with EHR data, comparison of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, flexibility of the infrastructure, and low registration burden for GPs. Methodological weaknesses, such as susceptibility to bias, patient selection, and low participation rates among GPs and patients, were seen as weaknesses and threats. Opportunities represent usefulness for policy makers and health professionals, conditional approval of medication, data linkage to other data sources, and feedback to patients.

Conclusions

The BRIMM research infrastructure has the potential to assess the benefits and safety of (medical) treatment in real-life situations using a unique combination of EHRs and patient-reported outcomes. As patient involvement is an important aspect of the treatment process, generating knowledge from clinical and patient perspectives is valuable for health care providers, patients, and policy makers. The developed methodology can easily be applied to other treatments and health problems.

A Privacy-Preserving and Standard-Based Architecture for Secondary Use of Clinical Data

The heterogeneity of the formats and standards of clinical data, which includes both structured, semi-structured, and unstructured data, in addition to the sensitive information contained in them, require the definition of specific approaches that are able to implement methodologies that can permit the extraction of valuable information buried under such data. Although many challenges and issues that have not been fully addressed still exist when this information must be processed and used for further purposes, the most recent techniques based on machine learning and big data analytics can support the information extraction process for the secondary use of clinical data. In particular, these techniques can facilitate the transformation of heterogeneous data into a common standard format. Moreover, they can also be exploited to define anonymization or pseudonymization approaches, respecting the privacy requirements stated in the General Data Protection Regulation, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and other national and regional laws. In fact, compliance with these laws requires that only de-identified clinical and personal data can be processed for secondary analyses, in particular when data is shared or exchanged across different institutions. This work proposes a modular architecture capable of collecting clinical data from heterogeneous sources and transforming them into useful data for secondary uses, such as research, governance, and medical education purposes. The proposed architecture is able to exploit appropriate modules and algorithms, carry out transformations (pseudonymization and standardization) required to use data for the second purposes, as well as provide efficient tools to facilitate the retrieval and analysis processes. Preliminary experimental tests show good accuracy in terms of quantitative evaluations.

The Attitude of Patients from a Romanian Tertiary Cardiology Center Regarding Participation in Biomarker-Based Clinical Trials

Background and Objectives: biomarker-based studies are the cornerstone of precision medicine, providing key data for tailored medical care. Enrollment of the planned number of patients is a critical determinant of a successful clinical trial. Moreover, for inclusive medical care, patients from different socio-demographic backgrounds must be recruited. Still, a significant number of trials fail to reach these prerequisites. Designing the informed consent forms based on the patients’ feedback could optimize accrual. We aimed to explore the attitudes of patients from a Romanian tertiary cardiology center towards participation in biomarker-based clinical trials. Materials and Methods: three hundred forty inpatients were interviewed based on a semi-structured questionnaire which included four sections: demographics, personal medical history, attitudes and trust. Results: Roughly, 62.5% of the respondents were interested in enrolling, while altruistic reasons were the most frequently expressed. Clear exposure of the possible risks was most valued (37.78%), followed by the possibility of directly communicating with the research team (23.78%). The most frequently chosen answer by acutely ill patients was improvement of their health, whereas chronically ill individuals indicated the possibility of withdrawal without affecting the quality of medical care. Importantly, the participation rate could be improved if the invitation to enrollment were made by both the current physician and the study coordinator (p = 0.0001). The level of trust in researchers was high in more than 50% of the respondents, and was correlated with therapeutic compliance and with the desire to join a biomarker study. Conclusions: the information gained will facilitate a tailored approach to patient enrollment in future biomarker-based studies in our clinic.