The importance of purpose: moving beyond consent in the societal use of personal health information

All of Us participant perspectives on the return of value in research

PURPOSE

To understand participant preferences for receiving specific types of research information, whether information preferences vary across sociodemographic groups, and the types of health providers participants could access to understand returned information.

METHODS

All of Us Research Program participants completed a value of returning research information survey. Stratified sampling was implemented to enhance participant diversity and avoid noncoverage. We used weighted multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations between the most valuable information types, access to providers, and sociodemographic variables.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 20,405) were diverse in their race/ethnicity (eg, 52% were White, 18% were Hispanic/Latino or Spanish, 3% were Asian, and 20% were Black or African American). Most participants (78.6%) valued information about their risk of serious genetic diseases with available treatment. Primary care physicians, specialists, and genetic counselors were the top providers that participants could access for help understanding returned information. Information preferences and provider access varied across sociodemographic groups. For example, as income levels increased, the odds of placing value on genetic results indicating risk of serious disease with available treatment increased when compared with the lowest income levels (P value < .001).

CONCLUSION

Although genetic information was most valuable to participants, preferences about specific information types varied across sociodemographic groups.

Patient and Public Willingness to Share Personal Health Data for Third-Party or Secondary Uses: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

International advances in information communication, eHealth, and other digital health technologies have led to significant expansions in the collection and analysis of personal health data. However, following a series of high-profile data sharing scandals and the emergence of COVID-19, critical exploration of public willingness to share personal health data remains limited, particularly for third-party or secondary uses.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to explore factors that affect public willingness to share personal health data for third-party or secondary uses.

METHODS

A systematic search of 6 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and SocINDEX) was conducted with review findings analyzed using inductive-thematic analysis and synthesized using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

Of the 13,949 papers identified, 135 were included. Factors most commonly identified as a barrier to data sharing from a public perspective included data privacy, security, and management concerns. Other factors found to influence willingness to share personal health data included the type of data being collected (ie, perceived sensitivity); the type of user requesting their data to be shared, including their perceived motivation, profit prioritization, and ability to directly impact patient care; trust in the data user, as well as in associated processes, often established through individual choice and control over what data are shared with whom, when, and for how long, supported by appropriate models of dynamic consent; the presence of a feedback loop; and clearly articulated benefits or issue relevance including valued incentivization and compensation at both an individual and collective or societal level.

CONCLUSIONS

There is general, yet conditional public support for sharing personal health data for third-party or secondary use. Clarity, transparency, and individual control over who has access to what data, when, and for how long are widely regarded as essential prerequisites for public data sharing support. Individual levels of control and choice need to operate within the auspices of assured data privacy and security processes, underpinned by dynamic and responsive models of consent that prioritize individual or collective benefits over and above commercial gain. Failure to understand, design, and refine data sharing approaches in response to changeable patient preferences will only jeopardize the tangible benefits of data sharing practices being fully realized.

Perspectives of Youths on the Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care Research and Clinical Care

Importance

Understanding the views and values of patients is of substantial importance to developing the ethical parameters of artificial intelligence (AI) use in medicine. Thus far, there is limited study on the views of children and youths. Their perspectives contribute meaningfully to the integration of AI in medicine.

Objective

To explore the moral attitudes and views of children and youths regarding research and clinical care involving health AI at the point of care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study recruited participants younger than 18 years during a 1-year period (October 2021 to March 2022) at a large urban pediatric hospital. A total of 44 individuals who were receiving or had previously received care at a hospital or rehabilitation clinic contacted the research team, but 15 were found to be ineligible. Of the 29 who consented to participate, 1 was lost to follow-up, resulting in 28 participants who completed the interview.

Exposures

Participants were interviewed using vignettes on 3 main themes: (1) health data research, (2) clinical AI trials, and (3) clinical use of AI.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Thematic description of values surrounding health data research, interventional AI research, and clinical use of AI.

Results

The 28 participants included 6 children (ages, 10-12 years) and 22 youths (ages, 13-17 years) (16 female, 10 male, and 3 trans/nonbinary/gender diverse). Mean (SD) age was 15 (2) years. Participants were highly engaged and quite knowledgeable about AI. They expressed a positive view of research intended to help others and had strong feelings about the uses of their health data for AI. Participants expressed appreciation for the vulnerability of potential participants in interventional AI trials and reinforced the importance of respect for their preferences regardless of their decisional capacity. A strong theme for the prospective use of clinical AI was the desire to maintain bedside interaction between the patient and their physician.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, children and youths reported generally positive views of AI, expressing strong interest and advocacy for their involvement in AI research and inclusion of their voices for shared decision-making with AI in clinical care. These findings suggest the need for more engagement of children and youths in health care AI research and integration.

Consumer Views on Privacy Protections and Sharing of Personal Digital Health Information

IMPORTANCE

Digital health information has many potential health applications, but privacy is a growing concern among consumers and policy makers. Consent alone is increasingly seen as inadequate to safeguard privacy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether different privacy protections are associated with consumers' willingness to share their digital health information for research, marketing, or clinical uses.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This 2020 national survey with an embedded conjoint experiment recruited US adults from a nationally representative sample with oversampling of Black and Hispanic individuals. Willingness to share digital information across 192 different scenarios reflecting the product of 4 possible privacy protections, 3 uses of information, 2 users of information, and 2 sources of digital information was evaluated. Each participant was randomly assigned 9 scenarios. The survey was administrated between July 10 and July 31, 2020, in Spanish and English. Analysis for this study was conducted between May 2021 and July 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Participants rated each conjoint profile on a 5-point Likert scale measuring their willingness to share their personal digital information (with 5 indicating the most willingness to share). Results are reported as adjusted mean differences.

RESULTS

Of the 6284 potential participants, 3539 (56%) responded to the conjoint scenarios. A total of 1858 participants (53%) were female, 758 (21%) identified as Black, 833 (24%) identified as Hispanic, 1149 (33%) had an annual income less than $50 000, and 1274 (36%) were 60 years or older. Participants were more willing to share health information with the presence of each individual privacy protection, including consent (difference, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.29-0.35; P < .001), followed by data deletion (difference, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.13-0.18; P < .001), oversight (difference, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.10-0.15; P < .001), and transparency of data collected (difference, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.05-0.10; P < .001). The relative importance (importance weight on a 0%-100% scale) was greatest for the purpose of use (29.9%) but when considered collectively, the 4 privacy protections together were the most important (51.5%) factor in the conjoint experiment. When the 4 privacy protections were considered separately, consent was the most important (23.9%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this survey study of a nationally representative sample of US adults, consumers' willingness to share personal digital health information for health purposes was associated with the presence of specific privacy protections beyond consent alone. Additional protections, including data transparency, oversight, and data deletion may strengthen consumer confidence in sharing their personal digital health information.

Returning study results to research participants: Data access, format, and sharing preferences

INTRODUCTION

Research participants have a growing expectation for transparency with their collected information; however, there is little guidance on participant preferences for receiving health information and how researchers should return this information to participants.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with a representative sample of 502 participants in the United States. Participants were asked about their preferences for receiving, sharing, and the formatting of health information collected for research purposes.

RESULTS

Most participants wanted their health information returned (84 %) to use it for their own knowledge and to manage their own health. Email was the most preferred format for receiving health data (67 %), followed by online website (44 %), and/or paper copy (32 %). Data format preferences varied by age, education, financial resources, subjective numeracy, and health literacy. Around one third of Generation Z (25 %), Millennials (30 %), and Generation X (29 %) participants preferred to receive their health information with a mobile app. In contrast, very few Baby Boomers (12 %) and none from the Silent Generation preferred the mobile app format. Having a paper copy of the data was preferred by 38 % of participants without a college degree compared to those with a college degree. Preferences were highest for sharing all health information with doctors and nurses (77 %), and some information with friends and family (66 %).

CONCLUSION

Study findings support returning research information to participants in multiple formats, including email, online websites, and paper copy. Preferences for whom to share information with varied by stakeholders and by sociodemographic characteristics. Researchers should offer multiple formats to participants and tailor data sharing options to participants' preferences. Future research should further explore combinations of individual characteristics that may further influence data sharing and format preferences.

'As Long as It's Used for Beneficial Things': An Investigation of non-Māori, Māori and Young People's Perceptions Regarding the Research use of the Aotearoa New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI)

The Aotearoa New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) is a national database containing a wide range of data about people and households. There is limited information about public views regarding its use for research.A qualitative study was undertaken to examine the views of forty individuals attending a large hospital in Auckland, including those of Māori ethnicity and young people. Semi-structured interview data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's method of thematic analysis.Seven key themes emerged: 1) Limited knowledge about medical data held in national databases; 2) Conditional support for the use of the IDI, including for research; 3) Concerns regarding the misuse of IDI data; 4) The importance of privacy; 5) Different views regarding consent for use of data for research; 6) Desire for access to personal data and the results of research; and 7) Concerns regarding third party and commercial use. Young people and those of Māori ethnicity were more wary of data misuse than others.Although there is reasonable support for the secondary use of public administrative data in the IDI for research, there is more work to be done to ensure ethical and culturally appropriate use of this data via improved consent privacy management processes and researcher training.

Ethical issues in biomedical research using electronic health records: a systematic review

Digitization of a health record changes its accessibility. An electronic health record (EHR) can be accessed by multiple authorized users. Health information from EHRs contributes to learning healthcare systems' development. The objective of this systematic review is to answer a question: What are ethical issues concerning research using EHRs in the literature? We searched Medline Ovid, Embase and Scopus for publications concerning ethical issues of research use of EHRs. We employed the constant comparative method to retrieve common ethical themes. We descriptively summarized empirical studies. The study reveals the breadth, depth, and complexity of ethical problems associated with research use of EHRs. The central ethical question that emerges from the review is how to manage access to EHRs. Managing accessibility consists of interconnected and overlapping issues: streamlining research access to EHRs, minimizing risk, engaging and educating patients, as well as ensuring trustworthy governance of EHR data. Most of the ethical problems concerning EHR-based research arise from rapid cultural change. The framing of concepts of privacy, as well as individual and public dimensions of beneficence, are changing. We are currently living in the middle of this transition period. Human emotions and mental habits, as well as laws, are lagging behind technological developments. In the medical tradition, individual patient's health has always been in the center. Transformation of healthcare care, its digitalization, seems to have some impacts on our perspective of health care ethics, research ethics and public health ethics.

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.

Transparent Defaults and Consent for Participation in a Learning Health Care System: An Empirical Study

We report a preregistered study that was designed to answer three questions about using transparent defaults to increase participation in a hypothetical learning health care system. Do default options influence consent to participate in learning activities within a learning health care system? Does transparency about default options decrease the effect of the defaults? Do people reconsider their choice of participation once they are informed about the defaults applied? In our study, application of the defaults did not have influence on rates of consent, nor did transparency about defaults have an effect on the rates of consent. Participants were also not likely to change their choice after being informed that defaults were applied to their previous choice. In general, our study raises doubts that defaults (both covert and transparent) can be used as an effective means in significantly increasing participation in learning health care systems.

Ethical concerns around use of artificial intelligence in health care research from the perspective of patients with meningioma, caregivers and health care providers: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

As artificial intelligence (AI) approaches in research increase and AI becomes more integrated into medicine, there is a need to understand perspectives from members of the Canadian public and medical community. The aim of this project was to investigate current perspectives on ethical issues surrounding AI in health care.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, adult patients with meningioma and their caregivers were recruited consecutively (August 2018-February 2019) from a neurosurgical clinic in Toronto. Health care providers caring for these patients were recruited through snowball sampling. Based on a nonsystematic literature search, we constructed 3 vignettes that sought participants' views on hypothetical issues surrounding potential AI applications in health care. The vignettes were presented to participants in interviews, which lasted 15-45 minutes. Responses were transcribed and coded for concepts, frequency of response types and larger concepts emerging from the interview.

RESULTS

We interviewed 30 participants: 18 patients, 7 caregivers and 5 health care providers. For each question, a variable number of responses were recorded. The majority of participants endorsed nonconsented use of health data but advocated for disclosure and transparency. Few patients and caregivers felt that allocation of health resources should be done via computerized output, and a majority stated that it was inappropriate to delegate such decisions to a computer. Almost all participants felt that selling health data should be prohibited, and a minority stated that less privacy is acceptable for the goal of improving health. Certain caveats were identified, including the desire for deidentification of data and use within trusted institutions.

INTERPRETATION

In this preliminary study, patients and caregivers reported a mixture of hopefulness and concern around the use of AI in health care research, whereas providers were generally more skeptical. These findings provide a point of departure for institutions adopting health AI solutions to consider the ethical implications of this work by understanding stakeholders' perspectives.

Public Attitudes Toward the Secondary Uses of Patient Records for Pharmaceutical Companies' Activities in Japan

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to assess public attitudes toward pharmaceutical companies' secondary uses of patient records and public preferences regarding consent approaches.

METHOD

3000 responses to an online survey were collected from adults in Japan. The questionnaire included 32 items related to (1) awareness of "clinical trials"; (2) awareness of the processes of drug development, such as cost, time, and the number of candidate substances in a new drug; (3) knowledge of the laws and regulations for use of patient records in Japan; (4) assessment of the public benefit of the secondary use of patient records; (5) preferences for consent for the secondary use of patient records; and (6) basic characteristics of the respondents.

RESULTS

The public benefit from secondary use of records by academic institutions for scientific research was rated highest. All of the activities by pharmaceutical companies were rated higher than those by governmental institutions and other for-profit companies. Regarding consent approaches, 37.9% preferred an "opt-in" approach for new drug development by pharmaceutical companies, 79.7% of whom would change their preference to an "opt-out" approach under specific conditions, such as ensuring intended uses only.

CONCLUSION

Our respondents consider the "public benefit" as dependent on the relative distance from "promoting public health" when assessing the secondary purpose of patient record use. Pharmaceutical companies should include the beneficial purposes when using patient records with "opt-out" approach. Policy makers should pay more attention to the purposes of use when developing personal information protection policies.

Real-world data and the patient perspective: the PROmise of social media?

Understanding the patient perspective is fundamental to delivering patient-centred care. In most healthcare systems, however, patient-reported outcomes are not regularly collected or recorded as part of routine clinical care, despite evidence that doing so can have tangible clinical benefit. In the absence of the routine collection of these data, research is beginning to turn to social media as a novel means to capture the patient voice. Publicly available social media data can now be analysed with relative ease, bypassing many logistical hurdles associated with traditional approaches and allowing for accelerated and cost-effective data collection. Existing work has shown these data can offer credible insight into the patient experience, although more work is needed to understand limitations with respect to patient representativeness and nuances of captured experience. Nevertheless, linking social media to electronic medical records offers a significant opportunity for patient views to be systematically collected for health services research and ultimately to improve patient care.

Between Scylla and Charybdis: Charting the Wicked Problem of Reusing Health Data for Clinical Research Informatics

OBJECTIVES

 Recognising dilemmas posed by the sharing and reuse of health data as a classic wicked problem and uncover some current key challenges to clinical research informatics.

METHODS

 A modified thematic review process including identification of agreed critical research questions, appropriate query terms and search strategy, identification of relevant papers in accordance with inclusion criteria, and authors' co-review of full text papers.

RESULTS

 Queries returned 4,779 papers published between January 2014 and November 2017. A shortlist of 197 abstracts was analysed and 18 papers were finally selected for review. Thematic assessment of findings revealed four key challenges: (1) uncertain reliability of consent as a cornerstone of trust due to the limits to understanding and awareness of data sharing; (2) ethical challenges around equity and autonomy; (3) ambitious overly theoretical governance frameworks lacking practical validity; and (4) a clear desire for further public and individual engagement to achieve clearer and more nuanced knowledge dissemination around data sharing practice and governance frameworks.

CONCLUSIONS

 Understanding the wicked problem of reusing clinically acquired health data for research purposes is essential if clinical research is to benefit from informatics advances. A lack of understanding around the context of data acquisition and sharing undermines the foundations of patient-professional trust. Efforts to protect privacy, where tailoring to specific contexts is a key driver, should support the development of solutions which more adequately honour privacy needs, justify access, and protect equity and autonomy.

Where Did Informed Consent for Research Come From?

To understand the future of informed consent, we should pay attention to two ethical-legal sources in addition to the revised Common Rule. Physicians acting as investigators and patients serving as research subjects bring to that relationship a long history regarding consent to treatment, and everyone dealing with research ethics needs to be aware of the Nuremberg Code and other human-rights documents. These three streams make separate and distinctly different contributions to informed consent doctrine.

A survey of practices for the use of electronic health records to support research recruitment

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide great promise for identifying cohorts and enhancing research recruitment. Such approaches are sorely needed, but there are few descriptions in the literature of prevailing practices to guide their use. A multidisciplinary workgroup was formed to examine current practices in the use of EHRs in recruitment and to propose future directions. The group surveyed consortium members regarding current practices. Over 98% of the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium responded to the survey. Brokered and self-service data warehouse access are in early or full operation at 94% and 92% of institutions, respectively, whereas, EHR alerts to providers and to research teams are at 45% and 48%, respectively, and use of patient portals for research is at 20%. However, these percentages increase significantly to 88% and above if planning and exploratory work were considered cumulatively. For most approaches, implementation reflected perceived demand. Regulatory and workflow processes were similarly varied, and many respondents described substantive restrictions arising from logistical constraints and limitations on collaboration and data sharing. Survey results reflect wide variation in implementation and approach, and point to strong need for comparative research and development of best practices to protect patients and facilitate interinstitutional collaboration and multisite research.

Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on the Ethics of Rapid-Learning Health Systems

Purpose To inform the evolving implementation of CancerLinQ and other rapid-learning systems for oncology care, we sought to evaluate perspectives of patients with cancer regarding ethical issues. Methods Using the GfK Group online research panel, representative of the US population, we surveyed 875 patients with cancer; 621 (71%) responded. We evaluated perceptions of appropriateness (scored from 1 to 10; 10, very appropriate) using scenarios and compared responses by age, race, and education. We constructed a scaled measure of comfort with secondary use of deidentified medical information and evaluated its correlates in a multivariable model. Results Of the sample, 9% were black and 9% Hispanic; 38% had completed high school or less, and 59% were age ≥ 65 years. Perceptions of appropriateness were highest when consent was obtained and university researchers used data to publish a research study (weighted mean appropriateness, 8.47) and lowest when consent was not obtained and a pharmaceutical company used data for marketing (weighted mean appropriateness, 2.7). Most respondents (72%) thought secondary use of data for research was very important, although those with lower education were less likely to endorse this (62% v 78%; P < .001). Overall, 35% believed it was necessary to obtain consent each time such research was to be performed; this proportion was higher among blacks/Hispanics than others (48% v 33%; P = .02). Comfort with the use of deidentified information from medical records varied by scenario and overall was associated with distrust in the health care system. Conclusion Perceptions of patients with cancer regarding secondary data use depend on the user and the specific use of the data, while also frequently differing by patient sociodemographic factors. Such information is critical to inform ongoing efforts to implement oncology learning systems.

Mining the social mediome

The experiences and behaviors revealed in our everyday lives provide as much insight into health and disease as any analysis of our genome could ever produce. These characteristics are not found in the genome, but may be revealed in our online activities, which make up our social mediome.

Using Digital Technology to Engage and Communicate with Patients: A Survey of Patient Attitudes

BACKGROUND

As primary care moves toward a system of population health management, providers will need to engage patients outside traditional office-based interactions.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed patient attitudes regarding technology use to communicate with their primary care team or to engage with other patients outside typical office settings. Design/Participants/Main Measures We conducted a national survey using GfK KnowledgePanel(®) to examine attitudes on the use of digital technology (email, text messaging, and social media such as Facebook and Twitter) to communicate with primary care teams about health behavior goals and test results. We also assessed attitudes toward the use of digital technologies to engage with other patients in activities such as peer coaching.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 5119 panel members invited to participate, 3336 completed the survey (response rate, 65.2 %). Among respondents, more than half (58 %) reported using Facebook, and nearly two-thirds (64.1 %) used text messaging. Overall, few participants were willing to communicate about health goals via social media (3.1 %) or text messaging (13.3 %), compared to email (48.8 %) or phone (75.5 %) (results were similar for communication about test results). Among those that used text messaging, race/ethnicity was the only factor independently associated with greater support for text messaging [African American (OR 1.44; 95 % CI, 1.01-2.06) and Hispanic (OR 1.8; 95 % CI, 1.25-2.59)] in multivariate models. Participants interested in engaging in peer coaching through Facebook (11.7 %) were more likely to be younger (p < 0.0001), female (p < 0.001), and a racial/ethnic minority (African American, non-Hispanic or Hispanic, p < 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite regular use of new digital technology such as text messaging and social media, few participants supported using these tools for communicating with their physicians' practice. Participants were most supportive of using email for communication. Contrary to previous studies, among users of technology, low socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic minorities were equally or more likely to support use.

Acquisition, Analysis, and Sharing of Data in 2015 and Beyond: A Survey of the Landscape: A Conference Report From the American Heart Association Data Summit 2015

BACKGROUND

A 1.5-day interactive forum was convened to discuss critical issues in the acquisition, analysis, and sharing of data in the field of cardiovascular and stroke science. The discussion will serve as the foundation for the American Heart Association's (AHA's) near-term and future strategies in the Big Data area. The concepts evolving from this forum may also inform other fields of medicine and science.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 47 participants representing stakeholders from 7 domains (patients, basic scientists, clinical investigators, population researchers, clinicians and healthcare system administrators, industry, and regulatory authorities) participated in the conference. Presentation topics included updates on data as viewed from conventional medical and nonmedical sources, building and using Big Data repositories, articulation of the goals of data sharing, and principles of responsible data sharing. Facilitated breakout sessions were conducted to examine what each of the 7 stakeholder domains wants from Big Data under ideal circumstances and the possible roles that the AHA might play in meeting their needs. Important areas that are high priorities for further study regarding Big Data include a description of the methodology of how to acquire and analyze findings, validation of the veracity of discoveries from such research, and integration into investigative and clinical care aspects of future cardiovascular and stroke medicine. Potential roles that the AHA might consider include facilitating a standards discussion (eg, tools, methodology, and appropriate data use), providing education (eg, healthcare providers, patients, investigators), and helping build an interoperable digital ecosystem in cardiovascular and stroke science.

CONCLUSION

There was a consensus across stakeholder domains that Big Data holds great promise for revolutionizing the way cardiovascular and stroke research is conducted and clinical care is delivered; however, there is a clear need for the creation of a vision of how to use it to achieve the desired goals. Potential roles for the AHA center around facilitating a discussion of standards, providing education, and helping establish a cardiovascular digital ecosystem. This ecosystem should be interoperable and needs to interface with the rapidly growing digital object environment of the modern-day healthcare system.

Linking social media and medical record data: a study of adults presenting to an academic, urban emergency department

BACKGROUND

Social media may offer insight into the relationship between an individual's health and their everyday life, as well as attitudes towards health and the perceived quality of healthcare services.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the acceptability to patients and potential utility to researchers of a database linking patients' social media content with their electronic medical record (EMR) data.

METHODS

Adult Facebook/Twitter users who presented to an emergency department were queried about their willingness to share their social media data and EMR data with health researchers for the purpose of building a databank for research purposes. Shared posts were searched for select terms about health and healthcare.

RESULTS

Of the 5256 patients approached, 2717 (52%) were Facebook and/or Twitter users. 1432 (53%) of those patients agreed to participate in the study. Of these participants, 1008 (71%) consented to share their social media data for the purposes of comparing it with their EMR. Social media data consisted of 1 395 720 posts/tweets to Facebook and Twitter. Participants sharing social media data were slightly younger (29.1±9.8 vs 31.9±10.4 years old; p<0.001), more likely to post at least once a day (42% vs 29%; p=0.003) and more likely to present to the emergency room via self-arrival mode and have private insurance. Of Facebook posts, 7.5% (95% CI 4.8% to 10.2%) were related to health. Individuals with a given diagnosis in their EMR were significantly more likely to use terms related to that diagnosis on Facebook than patients without that diagnosis in their EMR (p<0.0008).

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients are willing to share and link their social media data with EMR data. Sharing patients have several demographic and clinical differences compared with non-sharers. A database that merges social media with EMR data has the potential to provide insights about individuals' health and health outcomes.

Privacy and confidentiality in pragmatic clinical trials

With pragmatic clinical trials, an opportunity exists to answer important questions about the relative risks, burdens, and benefits of therapeutic interventions. However, concerns about protecting the privacy of this information are significant and must be balanced with the imperative to learn from the data gathered in routine clinical practice. Traditional privacy protections for research uses of identifiable information rely disproportionately on informed consent or authorizations, based on a presumption that this is necessary to fulfill ethical principles of respect for persons. But frequently, the ideal of informed consent is not realized in its implementation. Moreover, the principle of respect for persons—which encompasses their interests in health information privacy—can be honored through other mechanisms. Data anonymization also plays a role in protecting privacy but is not suitable for all research, particularly pragmatic clinical trials. In this article, we explore both the ethical foundation and regulatory framework intended to protect privacy in pragmatic clinical trials. We then review examples of novel approaches to respecting persons in research that may have the added benefit of honoring patient privacy considerations.

Pragmatic Randomized Trials Without Standard Informed Consent?: A National Survey

BACKGROUND

Significant debate surrounds the issue of whether written consent is necessary for pragmatic randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) with low risk.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the U.S. public's views on alternatives to written consent for low-risk pragmatic RCTs.

DESIGN

National experimental survey (2 × 2 factorial design) examining support for written consent versus general notification or verbal consent in 2 research scenarios.

SETTING

Web-based survey conducted in December 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

2130 U.S. adults sampled from a nationally representative, probability-based online panel (response rate, 64.0%).

MEASUREMENTS

Respondent's recommendation to an ethics review board and personal preference as a potential participant on how to obtain consent or notification in the 2 research scenarios.

RESULTS

Most respondents in each of the 4 groups (range, 60.3% to 71.5%) recommended written informed consent, and personal preferences were generally in accord with that advice. Most (78.9%) believed that the pragmatic RCTs did not pose additional risks, but 62.5% of these respondents would still recommend written consent. In contrast, a substantial minority in all groups (28.5% to 39.7%) recommended the alternative option (general notification or verbal consent) over written consent.

LIMITATION

Framing effects could have affected respondents' attitudes, and nonrespondents may have differed in levels of trust toward research or health care institutions.

CONCLUSION

Most of the public favored written informed consent over the most widely advocated alternatives for low-risk pragmatic RCTs; however, a substantial minority favored general notification or verbal consent.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences and Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.