Attitudes Toward Risk and Informed Consent for Research on Medical Practices: A Cross-sectional Survey

The ethical value of consulting community members in non-emergency trials conducted with waivers of informed consent for research

There is growing interest in using embedded research methods, particularly pragmatic clinical trials, to address well-known evidentiary shortcomings afflicting the health care system. Reviews of pragmatic clinical trials published between 2014 and 2019 found that 8.8% were conducted with waivers of informed consent; furthermore, the number of trials where consent is not obtained is increasing with time. From a regulatory perspective, waivers of informed consent are permissible when certain conditions are met, including that the study involves no more than minimal risk, that it could not practicably be carried out without a waiver, and that waiving consent does not violate participants' rights and welfare. Nevertheless, when research is conducted with a waiver of consent, several ethical challenges arise. We must consider how to: address empirical evidence showing that patients and members of the public generally prefer prospective consent, demonstrate respect for persons using tools other than consent, promote public trust and investigator integrity, and ensure an adequate level of participant protections. In this article, we use examples drawn from real pragmatic clinical trials to argue that prospective consultation with representatives of the target study population can address, or at least mitigate, many of the ethical challenges posed by waivers of informed consent. We also consider what consultation might involve to illustrate its feasibility and address potential objections.

Why do older adults decline participation in research? Results from two deprescribing clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Heterogenous older adult populations are underrepresented in clinical trials, and their participation is necessary for interventions that directly target them. The purpose of this study was to evaluate reasons why hospitalized older adults declined participation in two deprescribing clinical trials.

METHODS

We report enrollment data from two deprescribing trials, Shed-MEDS (non-Veterans) and VA DROP (Veterans). For both trials, inclusion criteria required participants to be hospitalized, age 50 or older, English-speaking, and taking five or more home medications. Eligible patients were approached for enrollment while hospitalized. When an eligible patient or surrogate declined participation, the reason(s) were recorded and subsequently analyzed inductively to develop themes, and a chi-square test was used for comparison (of themes between Veterans and non-Veterans).

RESULTS

Across both trials, 1226 patients (545 non-Veterans and 681 Veterans) declined enrollment and provided reasons, which were condensed into three themes: (1) feeling overwhelmed by their current health status, (2) lack of interest or mistrust of research, and (3) hesitancy to participate in a deprescribing study. A greater proportion of Veterans expressed a lack of interest or mistrust in research (42% vs 26%, chi-square value = 36.72, p < .001), whereas a greater proportion of non-Veterans expressed feeling overwhelmed by their current health status (54% vs 35%, chi-square value = 42.8 p < 0.001). Across both trials, similar proportion of patients expressed hesitancy to participate in a deprescribing study, with no significant difference between Veterans and non-Veterans (23% and 21%).

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the reasons older adults decline participation can inform future strategies to engage this multimorbid population.

Patient responses to passive enrollment into a large, pragmatic clinical trial: A qualitative content analysis

BACKGROUND

While passive enrollment or "opt-out" recruitment methods facilitate pragmatic clinical trials, they pose unique challenges, and it is unclear how participants feel about them. Here, we describe patient responses to passive enrollment into the Watch the Spot Trial, a pragmatic trial comparing two sets of guidelines for small lung nodule follow-up.

METHODS

For this nested qualitative study, we analyzed participant-initiated calls and emails. We performed a qualitative content analysis, using a team-coding approach to identify reasons that eligible participants contacted the study team. We calculated the proportion of contacts containing each code, and how often each code coincided with study opt-outs and other codes.

RESULTS

Of 23,412 eligible participants across seven sites, 1494 (6.4%) contacted the study team, with 1560 total contacts. Among the total contacts, the most common codes (i.e., reasons for contacting the team) were study opt-outs (n = 614, 39.0%), clarification of study procedures (n = 328, 21.0%), and unawareness of the nodule prior to research notification (n = 244, 15.6%). The least common codes were concerns about sharing of protected health information with the study team (n = 22, 1.4%) or outside of the healthcare system (n = 26, 1.7%), and disapproval of the opt-out approach (n = 10, 0.6%); most patients with these concerns opted-out. Nodule unawareness sometimes coincided with anger (n = 24) or distress (n = 15), and questions about nodule care sometimes coincided with distress (n = 20) and questions about follow-up surveys (n = 26).

CONCLUSION

Most participants did not report concerns about passive enrollment. Patient perspectives are an invaluable resource for minimizing risks and inconveniences of future pragmatic trials using this recruitment method.

Practices and attitudes of Bavarian stakeholders regarding the secondary-use of health data for research purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study (Preprint)

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic is a threat to global health and requires collaborative health research efforts across organizations and countries to address it. Although routinely collected digital health data are a valuable source of information for researchers, benefiting from these data requires accessing and sharing the data. Health care organizations focusing on individual risk minimization threaten to undermine COVID-19 research efforts, and it has been argued that there is an ethical obligation to use the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) scientific research exemption during the COVID-19 pandemic to support collaborative health research.

Objective

This study aims to explore the practices and attitudes of stakeholders in the German federal state of Bavaria regarding the secondary use of health data for research purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a specific focus on the GDPR scientific research exemption.

Methods

Individual semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted between December 2020 and January 2021 with a purposive sample of 17 stakeholders from 3 different groups in Bavaria: researchers involved in COVID-19 research (n=5, 29%), data protection officers (n=6, 35%), and research ethics committee representatives (n=6, 35%). The transcripts were analyzed using conventional content analysis.

Results

Participants identified systemic challenges in conducting collaborative secondary-use health data research in Bavaria; secondary health data research generally only happens when patient consent has been obtained, or the data have been fully anonymized. The GDPR research exemption has not played a significant role during the pandemic and is currently seldom and restrictively used. Participants identified 3 key groups of barriers that led to difficulties: the wider ecosystem at many Bavarian health care organizations, legal uncertainty that leads to risk-adverse approaches, and ethical positions that patient consent ought to be obtained whenever possible to respect patient autonomy. To improve health data research in Bavaria and across Germany, participants wanted greater legal certainty regarding the use of pseudonymized data for research purposes without the patient’s consent.

Conclusions

The current balance between enabling the positive goals of health data research and avoiding associated data protection risks is heavily skewed toward avoiding risks; so much so that it makes reaching the goals of health data research extremely difficult. This is important, as it is widely recognized that there is an ethical imperative to use health data to improve care. The current approach also creates a problematic conflict with the ambitions of Germany, and the federal state of Bavaria, to be a leader in artificial intelligence. A recent development in the field of German public administration known as norm screening (Normenscreening) could potentially provide a systematic approach to minimize legal barriers. This approach would likely be beneficial to other countries.

Research Ethics for Behavior Analysts in Practice

Behavior analysts in practice have an advantage over many others in the helping professions-they have at their disposal a robust science of behavior change informed primarily by single-case experimental research designs. This is advantageous because the research literature is focused on individual behavior change and has direct relevance to behavior analysts who need to change the behavior of individuals in need. Also, the same experimental designs used to advance the basic and applied sciences can be used to evaluate and refine specific procedures as they are put into practice. Thus, behavior-analytic research and practice are often intertwined. However, when behavior analysts in practice conduct research and use their own clients as participants, several important ethical issues need to be considered. Research with human participants is subject to careful ethical oversight, but the ethical guidelines that have been developed are usually described in terms of research conducted by nonpractitioners working in universities or institutions. This article focuses on several areas of special concern when conducting research in practice settings, including dual relationships and conflicts of interest, obtaining informed consent, and using ethical review panels.

Motivations and concerns of patients considering participation in an implementation study of a hereditary cancer risk assessment program in diverse primary care settings

PURPOSE

Understanding the motivations and concerns of patients from diverse populations regarding participation in implementation research provides the needed evidence about how to design and conduct studies for facilitating access to genetics services. Within a hereditary cancer screening study assessing a multifaceted intervention, we examined primary care patients' motivations and concerns about participation.

METHODS

We surveyed and interviewed study participants after they enrolled, surveyed those who did not complete enrollment, and used descriptive qualitative and quantitative methods to identify motivations and concerns regarding participation.

RESULTS

Survey respondents' most common motivations included a desire to learn about their future risk (81%), receiving information that may help family (58%), and a desire to advance research (34%). Interviews revealed 3 additional important factors: affordability of testing, convenience of participation, and clinical relationships supporting research decision-making. Survey data of those who declined enrollment showed that the reasons for declining included concerns about privacy (38%), burdens of the research (19%), and their fear of not being able to cope with the genetic information (19%).

CONCLUSION

Understanding the facilitating factors and concerns that contribute to decisions about research may reveal ways to improve equity in access to care and research that could lead to greater uptake of genomic medicine across diverse primary care patient populations.

Alternative Consent Models in Pragmatic Palliative Care Clinical Trials

Palliative care research raises a host of ethical concerns. Obtaining informed consent from seriously ill patients and their families is often perceived as an additional burden. Alternative approaches to traditional written informed consent reflect the changing nature of modern trial design, embracing real-world effectiveness and pragmatic clinical trials with those who are seriously ill. Ethicists, clinical investigators, and regulatory bodies have acknowledged the challenges to rigorous, meaningful, and generalizable research across diverse patient populations in real-world settings. The purpose of this article is to describe how these clinical trial designs have driven innovation in methods for achieving informed consent, with a focus on palliative care research. In this article, we describe and provide examples of consent waivers and three types of alternative approaches to consent, including broadcast notification and integrated and targeted consent. We also present our experiences in an ongoing palliative care clinical trial, specifically using broadcast notification. Working with participants and regulatory oversight organizations, investigators can address the limits of traditional written informed consent and adopt innovative consent models to advance the science of palliative care. Research is now needed to determine the impact of these differing consent models on clinical trial recruitment, enrollment, and retention, as well as participants' informed understanding of their research participation using such models.

Public Attitudes toward Consent When Research Is Integrated into Care-Any "Ought" from All the "Is"?

Research that is integrated into ongoing clinical activities holds the potential to accelerate the generation of knowledge to improve the health of individuals and populations. Yet integrating research into clinical care presents difficult ethical and regulatory challenges, including how or whether to obtain informed consent. Multiple empirical studies have explored patients' and the public's attitudes toward approaches to consent for pragmatic research. Questions remain, however, about how to use the resulting empirical data in resolving normative and policy debates and what kind of data warrants the most consideration. We recommend prioritizing data about what people consider acceptable with respect to consent for pragmatic research and data about people's informed, rather than initial, preferences on this subject. In addition, we advise caution regarding the weight given to majority viewpoints and identify circumstances when empirical data can be overridden. We argue that empirical data bolster normative arguments that alterations of consent should be the default in pragmatic research; waivers are appropriate only when the pragmatic research would otherwise be impracticable and has sufficiently high social value.

The use of personal health information outside the circle of care: consent preferences of patients from an academic health care institution

BACKGROUND

Immense volumes of personal health information (PHI) are required to realize the anticipated benefits of artificial intelligence in clinical medicine. To maintain public trust in medical research, consent policies must evolve to reflect contemporary patient preferences.

METHODS

Patients were invited to complete a 27-item survey focusing on: (a) broad versus specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out approaches; (c) comfort level sharing with different recipients; (d) attitudes towards commercialization; and (e) options to track PHI use and study results.

RESULTS

222 participants were included in the analysis; 83% were comfortable sharing PHI with researchers at their own hospital, although younger patients (≤ 49 years) were more uncomfortable than older patients (50 + years; 13% versus 2% uncomfortable, p < 0.05). While 56% of patients preferred broad consent, 38% preferred specific consent; 6% preferred not sharing at all. The majority of patients (63%) preferred to be asked for permission before entry into a contact pool. Again, this trend was more pronounced for younger patients (≤ 49 years: 76%). Approximately half of patients were uncomfortable sharing PHI with commercial enterprises (51% uncomfortable, 27% comfortable, 22% neutral). Most patients preferred to track PHI usage (61%), with the highest proportion once again reported by the youngest patients (≤ 49 years: 71%). A majority of patients also wished to be notified regarding study results (70%).

CONCLUSIONS

While most patients were willing to share their PHI with researchers within their own institution, many preferred a transparent and reciprocal consent process. These data also suggest a generational shift, wherein younger patients preferred more specific consent options. Modernizing consent policies to reflect increased autonomy is crucial in fostering sustained public engagement with medical research.

Citizens, Research Ethics Committee Members and Researchers' Attitude Toward Information and Consent for the Secondary Use of Health Data: Implications for Research Within Learning Health Systems

A survey was conducted to assess citizens, research ethics committee members, and researchers' attitude toward information and consent for the secondary use of health data for research within learning health systems (LHSs). Results show that the reuse of health data for research to advance knowledge and improve care is valued by all parties; consent regarding health data reuse for research has fundamental importance particularly to citizens; and all respondents deemed important the existence of a secure website to support the information and consent processes. This survey was part of a larger project that aims at exploring public perspectives on alternate approaches to the current consent models for health data reuse to take into consideration the unique features of LHSs. The revised model will need to ensure that citizens are given the opportunity to be better informed about upcoming research and have their say, when possible, in the use of their data.

Ethical frameworks for quality improvement activities: an analysis of international practice

Purpose

To examine international approaches to the ethical oversight and regulation of quality improvement and clinical audit in healthcare systems

Data sources

We searched grey literature including websites of national research and ethics regulatory bodies and health departments of selected countries.

Study selection

National guidance documents were included from six countries: Ireland, England, Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America and Canada.

Data extraction

Data were extracted from 19 documents using an a priori framework developed from the published literature.

Results

We organized data under five themes: ethical frameworks; guidance on ethical review; consent, vulnerable groups and personal health data. Quality improvement activity tended to be outside the scope of the ethics frameworks in most countries. Only New Zealand had integrated national ethics standards for both research and quality improvement. Across countries, there is consensus that this activity should not be automatically exempted from ethical review but requires proportionate review or organizational oversight for minimal risk projects. In the majority of countries, there is a lack of guidance on participant consent, use of personal health information and inclusion of vulnerable groups in routine quality improvement.

Conclusion

Where countries fail to provide specific ethics frameworks for quality improvement, guidance is dispersed across several organizations which may lack legal certainty. Our review demonstrates a need for appropriate oversight and responsive infrastructure for quality improvement underpinned by ethical frameworks that build equivalence with research oversight. It outlines aspects of good practice, especially The New Zealand framework that integrates research and quality improvement ethics.

International Policy Frameworks for Consent in Minimal-risk Pragmatic Trials

There is intense debate around the use of altered and waived consent for pragmatic trials. Those in favor argue that traditional consent compromises the internal and external validity of these trials. Those against, warn that the resultant loss of autonomy compromises respect for persons and could undermine trust in the research enterprise.This article examines whether international ethical guidelines and the policy frameworks in three countries-the United States, England, and Australia-permit altered and waived consent for minimal-risk pragmatic trials conducted outside the emergency setting. Provisions for both are clearly articulated in U.S. regulations, but many countries do not have equivalent frameworks. Investigators should not assume that all consent models permitted in the United States are legal in their jurisdictions, even if they are deemed ethically defensible.The authors summarize ethical and regulatory considerations and present a framework for investigators contemplating trials with altered or waived consent.

Research Use of Electronic Health Records: Patients' Views on Alternative Approaches to Permission

Background: The increased use of electronic health records (EHRs) has resulted in new opportunities for research, but also raises concerns regarding privacy, confidentiality, and patient awareness. Because public trust is essential to the success of the research enterprise, patient perspectives are essential to the development and implementation of ethical approaches to the research use of EHRs. Yet, little is known about patients' views and expectations regarding various approaches to seeking permission for research use of their EHR data. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 120 patients in four counties in diverse regions of the southeastern United States: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Piedmont area of North Carolina. We asked participants to consider, from multiple stakeholder perspectives, the advantages and disadvantages of three approaches to notifying patients of, or obtaining permission for, research use of their EHR data; whether they believed it would be acceptable if their healthcare organization used each approach; and which approach would be most appropriate. Results: Nearly all participants said General Notification, Broad Permission, and Categorical Permission would each be acceptable approaches to notification of, or permission for, EHR research. Over half identified Broad Permission as the most appropriate approach. Across all of these discussions, major themes included the importance of clarity, simplicity, and usability of patient-facing materials, as well as the level of transparency, trustworthiness, and respect for patients the approach conveys. Conclusions: Our findings help to inform the development and implementation of ethical approaches to the research use of EHRs by identifying key patient considerations regarding various approaches to permission and suggesting potential actions for healthcare organizations and researchers.

Informed consent within a learning health system: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

A major consideration for the implementation of a learning health system (LHS) is consent from participants to the use of their data for research purposes. The main objective of this paper was to identify in the literature which types of consent have been proposed for participation in research observational activities in a LHS. We were particularly interested in understanding which approaches were seen as most feasible and acceptable and in which context, in order to inform the development of a Quebec-based LHS.

METHODS

Using a scoping review methodology, we searched scientific and legal databases as well as the gray literature using specific terms. Full-text articles were reviewed independently by two authors on the basis of the following concepts: (a) LHS and (b) approach to consent. The selected papers were imported in NVivo software for analysis in the light of a conceptual framework that distinguishes various, largely independent dimensions of consent.

RESULTS

A total of 93 publications were analysed for this review. Several studies reach opposing conclusions concerning the best approach to consent within a LHS. However, in the light of the conceptual framework we developed, we found that many of these results are distorted by the conflation between various characteristics of consent. Thus, when these characteristics are distinguished, the results mainly suggest the prime importance of the communication process, by contrast to the scope of consent or the kind of action required by participants (opt-in/opt-out). We identified two models of consent that were especially relevant for our purpose: metaconsent and dynamic consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows the importance of distinguishing carefully the various features of the consent process. It also suggests that the metaconsent model is a valuable model within a LHS, as it addresses many of the issues raised with regards to feasibility and acceptability. We propose to complement this model by adding the modalities of the information process to the dimensions relevant in the metaconsent process.

"My Research Is Their Business, but I'm Not Their Business": Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Commercialization of Precision Oncology Data

BACKGROUND

Genetic sequencing and precision oncology have supported clinical breakthroughs but depend upon access to vast arrays of research specimens and data. One way for academic medical centers to fund such infrastructure and research is "commercialization" of access to specimens and data to industry. Here we explore patient and clinician perspectives regarding cancer specimen and data commercialization with the goal of improving such processes in the future.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This qualitative analysis was embedded within a prospective precision oncology sequencing study of adults with head and neck cancer. Via semistructured dyadic interviews with patients with cancer and their doctors, we assessed understanding and concerns regarding potential commercialization, opinions regarding investment of profits, and perspectives regarding the return of information directly to participants from industry.

RESULTS

Several patient- and clinician-participants did not understand that the consent form already permitted commercialization of patient genetic data and expressed concerns regarding who would profit from the data, how profits would be used, and privacy and access. Patients were generally more comfortable with commercialization than clinicians. Many patients and clinicians were comfortable with investing profits back into research, but clinicians were more interested in investment in head and neck cancer research specifically. Patients generally supported potential return-of-results from a private entity, but their clinicians were more skeptical.

CONCLUSION

Our results illustrate the limitations of mandatory disclosures in the informed consent process. The voices of both patients and their doctors are critical to mitigate violations of privacy and a degradation of trust as stakeholders negotiate the terms of academic and commercial engagement.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Further education is needed regarding how and why specimens and data in precision oncology research may be commercialized for both patients and providers alike. This process will require increased transparency, comprehension, and engagement of involved stakeholders.

The ethical challenges raised in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: an interview study with key stakeholders

Background

There is a concern that the apparent effectiveness of interventions tested in clinical trials may not be an accurate reflection of their actual effectiveness in usual practice. Pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are designed with the intent of addressing this discrepancy. While pragmatic RCTs may increase the relevance of research findings to practice they may also raise new ethical concerns (even while reducing others). To explore this question, we interviewed key stakeholders with the aim of identifying potential ethical challenges in the design and conduct of pragmatic RCTs with a view to developing future guidance on these issues.

Methods

Interviews were conducted with clinical investigators, methodologists, patient partners, ethicists, and other knowledge users (e.g., regulators). Interviews covered experiences with pragmatic RCTs, ethical issues relevant to pragmatic RCTs, and perspectives on the appropriate oversight of pragmatic RCTs. Interviews were coded inductively by two coders. Interim and final analyses were presented to the broader team for comment and discussion before the analytic framework was finalized.

Results

We conducted 45 interviews between April and September 2018. Interviewees represented a range of disciplines and jurisdictions as well as varying content expertise. Issues of importance in pragmatic RCTs were (1) identification of relevant risks from trial participation and determination of what constitutes minimal risk; (2) determining when alterations to traditional informed consent approaches are appropriate; (3) the distinction between research, quality improvement, and practice; (4) the potential for broader populations to be affected by the trial and what protections they might be owed; (5) the broader range of trial stakeholders in pragmatic RCTs, and determining their roles and responsibilities; and (6) determining what constitutes “usual care” and implications for trial reporting.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest both the need to discuss familiar ethical topics in new ways and that there are new ethical issues in pragmatic RCTs that need greater attention. Addressing the highlighted issues and developing guidance will require multidisciplinary input, including patient and community members, within a broader and more comprehensive analysis that extends beyond consent and attends to the identified considerations relating to risk and stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

Parental opinions regarding consent for observational research of no or minimal risk in the pediatric intensive care unit

Background

The aim of the study was to determine opinions and knowledge regarding the process of obtaining informed consent to participate in observational research in pediatric intensive care.

Methods

Survey 1 asked decision makers what model(s) of consent was acceptable for each type of observational research both before and after background information. Survey 2 asked decision makers about the experience of being asked for consent to observational research, and knowledge regarding the consent process both before and after background information.

Results

Cooperation rate was 100/117 (85%). The proportion in favor of any of the offered alternatives to signed informed consent for observational research, after receiving all the background information, was 74-80%, lowest for observational prospective research with a minimal risk intervention 37/50 (74%; 95% CI 60–84%). The proportion who agreed they felt overwhelmed by being approached for consent to observational research was 26 (52%; 95% CI 39-65%). Most respondents (from 60 to 74%) felt they understood the concepts regarding observational research; however, after reading background information, most (from 60 to 74%) felt their understanding had improved “a great deal”.

Conclusion

Understanding of risk, practical difficulties, consent bias, and Research Ethics Board safeguards was poor. Future study is needed to confirm our finding that most agreed with alternative methods of consent for observational research.

Attitudes Regarding Enrollment in a Genetic Research Project: An Informed Consent Simulation Study Comparing Views of People With Depression, Diabetes, and Neither Condition

In this study, participants with a self-reported history of depression, diabetes, or no illness underwent a simulated informed consent process for a hypothetical genetic study related to depression or diabetes. Participants completed a survey assessing their perceived understanding of the research process, perceptions of its risks and benefits, their satisfaction with the informed consent process, and their readiness to make a hypothetical enrollment decision. All participants indicated strong readiness to make an enrollment decision regarding the research characterized in the simulation. Participants reported understanding the consent process relatively well and being generally satisfied with it. Greater concerns were expressed regarding psychosocial risks than biological risks for genetic studies on mental disorders. Our study documented positive attitudes toward volunteering for research that involved the collection of genetic data.

Assessing readability and comprehension of informed consent materials for medical device research: A survey of informed consents from FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Legally effective informed consent has been a long-standing requirement for FDA-regulated clinical studies. However, informed consent forms (ICFs) are often thought to be too long, too complex, and too difficult for participants to understand. In this article, investigators from the FDAs Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) surveyed 399 ICFs from approved investigational device exemption (IDE) applications for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 to evaluate the readability of ICFs. The investigators collected data from the ICFs, using variables related to structure, readability, and comprehension. The investigators found that the mean grade-reading levels of the ICFs ranged from 10th grade to college level (Table 2), higher than the recommended 6th to 8th grade level, when measured by major readability evaluation tools (the SMOG readability grade level formula, the Flesch-Kincaid Index Grade Level Readability Formula, the Flesch Reading Ease test, and the Dale-Chall readability formula). Overall, the ICFs and informed consent (IC) processes, as described in the IDE application, lacked components that enhanced participants' comprehension, such as short sentences (e.g., no more than 8 to 10 to words) and the use of pictures, tables, and diagrams. CDRH investigators believe that information about ICFs' readability, comprehension, and structure will help support current and future efforts to improve the IC process. The intent of the article is to demonstrate that improvements are needed in the IC process and to encourage clinical trial stakeholders to consider implementing those approaches that optimize patient comprehension in the development of their IC processes.

When Is It Ethical for Physician-Investigators to Seek Consent From Their Own Patients?

Classic statements of research ethics advise against permitting physician-investigators to obtain consent for research participation from patients with whom they have preexisting treatment relationships. Reluctance about "dual-role" consent reflects the view that distinct normative commitments govern physician-patient and investigator-participant relationships, and that blurring the research-care boundary could lead to ethical transgressions. However, several features of contemporary research demand reconsideration of the ethics of dual-role consent. Here, we examine three arguments advanced against dual-role consent: that it creates role conflict for the physician-investigator; that it can compromise the voluntariness of the patient-participant's consent; and that it promotes therapeutic misconceptions. Although these concerns have merit in some circumstances, they are not dispositive in all cases. Rather, their force-and the ethical acceptability of dual-role consent-varies with features of the particular study. As research participation more closely approximates usual care, it becomes increasingly acceptable, or even preferable, for physicians to seek consent for research from their own patients. It is time for a more nuanced approach to dual-role consent.

Kenyan health stakeholder views on individual consent, general notification and governance processes for the re-use of hospital inpatient data to support learning on healthcare systems

BACKGROUND

Increasing adoption of electronic health records in hospitals provides new opportunities for patient data to support public health advances. Such learning healthcare models have generated ethical debate in high-income countries, including on the role of patient and public consent and engagement. Increasing use of electronic health records in low-middle income countries offers important potential to fast-track healthcare improvements in these settings, where a disproportionate burden of global morbidity occurs. Core ethical issues have been raised around the role and form of information sharing processes for learning healthcare systems, including individual consent and individual and public general notification processes, but little research has focused on this perspective in low-middle income countries.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study on the role of information sharing and governance processes for inpatient data re-use, using in-depth interviews with 34 health stakeholders at two public hospitals on the Kenyan coast, including health managers, providers and researchers. Data were collected between March and July 2016 and analysed using a framework approach, with Nvivo 10 software to support data management.

RESULTS

Most forms of clinical data re-use were seen as an important public health good. Individual consent and general notification processes were often argued as important, but contingent on interrelated influences of the type of data, use and secondary user. Underlying concerns were linked to issues of patient privacy and autonomy; perceived risks to trust in health systems; and fairness in how data would be used, particularly for non-public sector re-users. Support for engagement often turned on the anticipated outcomes of information-sharing processes, as building or undermining trust in healthcare systems.

CONCLUSIONS

As reported in high income countries, learning healthcare systems in low-middle counties may generate a core ethical tension between supporting a public good and respecting patient autonomy and privacy, with the maintenance of public trust acting as a core requirement. While more evidence is needed on patient and public perspectives on learning healthcare activities, greater collaboration between public health and research governance systems is likely to support the development of efficient and locally responsive learning healthcare activities in LMICs.

What gives them the right? Legal privilege and waivers of consent for research

Waivers of informed consent for research participation are permitted in the United States under the Common Rule, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations, and the US Food and Drug Administration's Exception from Informed Consent rule for emergency research. We assess the novel question regarding what legal right researchers have to carry out research procedures on or about another person, be it experimental medical intervention, psychological or social manipulation, or invasion of privacy, without the permission of their subjects. Our analysis frames waivers of consent as a species of presumed consent, and we address the underlying empirical question of whether it is reasonable to believe that subjects from whom no consent is sought would in fact agree, if asked. A scoping review of what is known about participation and refusal rates in United States-based research suggests that a large minority, on average, do not agree to take part in research. Refusal rates vary widely. This suggests that, while researchers may assert the social utility of their studies are high enough to justify waivers, there is reason to suspect that many who would be enrolled under a waiver of consent would not want to be enrolled. We conclude that waivers should be rare and that institutional review boards and researchers must explicitly address study acceptability in the community at large and the target population of their proposed research.

Understanding preferences regarding consent for pragmatic trials in acute care

BACKGROUND

There has been debate about the role of consent in pragmatic trials comparing qualitatively similar interventions. Consent preferences may differ in acute care contexts, given severe illness, time constraints, and other barriers to consent. In addition, studies have not assessed the impact of disclosing financial considerations as a justification for trials. This study was designed to assess preferences of the general public regarding consent for a pragmatic trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

METHODS

This survey was completed using an online, probability-based panel representative of the US population. It incorporated a randomized, experimental (2 × 2) design assessing (1) preference for written consent versus an alternative (notification after enrollment or brief verbal consent) and (2) impact of including cost as a motivating factor for the trial. The survey used a scenario based on a recent pragmatic trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Primary independent variables were personal preference and recommendation as a member of a review board regarding written consent versus the assigned alternative strategy and personal attitude toward trial enrollment. Descriptive analyses were conducted using post-stratification weights. Regression models were created to examine relationships between demographic variables and consent preference and willingness to enroll. Provision of cost information was incorporated into a regression model to examine its impact on consent preference.

RESULTS

The study included 2027 participants. Of those participants, 51.1% versus 45.8% stated a personal preference for written consent versus notification after enrollment; however, 60.0% versus 35.5% preferred brief verbal consent to written consent. Even among respondents stating they would be unlikely to enroll in the trial if asked, more respondents (50.6%) preferred brief verbal consent. The preference for verbal consent was generally shared across demographic categories, although lower educational attainment was associated with reduced acceptance (p = 0.001 for trend). Respondents were more likely to support an alternative to written consent when asked their personal preference than when asked their recommendation as a member of a review board. The provision of cost information did not have a meaningful effect on consent preferences, attitudes toward enrollment, or views about the study.

CONCLUSION

Respondents generally supported prospective involvement in enrollment decisions in the setting of acute myocardial infarction and were particularly supportive of brief verbal consent. This support persisted across demographic categories. The finding that individuals were more likely to support alternatives to written consent when asked for a personal preference rather than as a "committee member" suggests that conservative institutional approaches to consent could hinder implementation of more patient-centered approaches. The role of cost transparency in consent discussions warrants further study.

The spectrum of ethical issues in a Learning Health Care System: a systematic qualitative review

Purpose

To determine systematically the spectrum of ethical issues that is raised for stakeholders in a 'Learning Health Care System' (LHCS).

Data sources

The systematic review was conducted in PubMed and Google Books between the years 2007 and 2015.

Study selection

The literature search retrieved 1258 publications. Each publication was independently screened by two reviewers for eligibility for inclusion. Ethical issues were defined as arising when a relevant normative principle is not adequately considered or two principles come into conflict.

Data extraction

A total of 65 publications were included in the final analysis and were analysed using an adapted version of qualitative content analysis. A coding frame was developed inductively from the data, only the highest-level categories were generated deductively for a life-cycle perspective.

Results of data synthesis

A total of 67 distinct ethical issues could be categorized under different phases of the LHCS life-cycle. An overarching theme that was repeatedly raised was the conflict between the current regulatory system and learning health care.

Conclusion

The implementation of a LHCS can help realize the ethical imperative to continuously improve the quality of health care. However, the implementation of a LHCS can also raise a number of important ethical issues itself. This review highlights the importance for health care leaders and policy makers to balance the need to protect and respect individual participants involved in learning health care activities with the social value of improving health care.

Ensuring respect for persons in COMPASS: a cluster randomised pragmatic clinical trial

Cluster randomised clinical trials present unique challenges in meeting ethical obligations to those who are treated at a randomised site. Obtaining informed consent for research within the context of clinical care is one such challenge. In order to solve this problem it is important that an informed consent process be effective and efficient, and that it does not impede the research or the healthcare. The innovative approach to informed consent employed in the COMPASS study demonstrates the feasibility of upholding ethical standards without imposing undue burden on clinical workflows, staff members or patients who may participate in the research by virtue of their presence in a cluster randomised facility. The COMPASS study included 40 randomised sites and compared the effectiveness of a postacute stroke intervention with standard care. Each site provided either the comprehensive postacute stroke intervention or standard care according to the randomisation assignment. Working together, the study team, institutional review board and members of the community designed an ethically appropriate and operationally reasonable consent process which was carried out successfully at all randomised sites. This achievement is noteworthy because it demonstrates how to effectively conduct appropriate informed consent in cluster randomised trials, and because it provides a model that can easily be adapted for other pragmatic studies. With this innovative approach to informed consent, patients have access to the information they need about research occurring where they are seeking care, and medical researchers can conduct their studies without ethical concerns or unreasonable logistical impediments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02588664, recruiting. This article covers the development of consent process that is currentlty being employed in the study.

Routinely collected data for randomized trials: promises, barriers, and implications

BACKGROUND

Routinely collected health data (RCD) are increasingly used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This can provide three major benefits: increasing value through better feasibility (reducing costs, time, and resources), expanding the research agenda (performing trials for research questions otherwise not amenable to trials), and offering novel design and data collection options (e.g., point-of-care trials and other designs directly embedded in routine care). However, numerous hurdles and barriers must be considered pertaining to regulatory, ethical, and data aspects, as well as the costs of setting up the RCD infrastructure. Methodological considerations may be different from those in traditional RCTs: RCD are often collected by individuals not involved in the study and who are therefore blinded to the allocation of trial participants. Another consideration is that RCD trials may lead to greater misclassification biases or dilution effects, although these may be offset by randomization and larger sample sizes. Finally, valuable insights into external validity may be provided when using RCD because it allows pragmatic trials to be performed.

METHODS

We provide an overview of the promises, challenges, and potential barriers, methodological implications, and research needs regarding RCD for RCTs.

RESULTS

RCD have substantial potential for improving the conduct and reducing the costs of RCTs, but a multidisciplinary approach is essential to address emerging practical barriers and methodological implications.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should be directed toward such issues and specifically focus on data quality validation, alternative research designs and how they affect outcome assessment, and aspects of reporting and transparency.

Reframing Consent for Clinical Research: A Function-Based Approach

Although informed consent is important in clinical research, questions persist regarding when it is necessary, what it requires, and how it should be obtained. The standard view in research ethics is that the function of informed consent is to respect individual autonomy. However, consent processes are multidimensional and serve other ethical functions as well. These functions deserve particular attention when barriers to consent exist. We argue that consent serves seven ethically important and conceptually distinct functions. The first four functions pertain principally to individual participants: (1) providing transparency; (2) allowing control and authorization; (3) promoting concordance with participants' values; and (4) protecting and promoting welfare interests. Three other functions are systemic or policy focused: (5) promoting trust; (6) satisfying regulatory requirements; and (7) promoting integrity in research. Reframing consent around these functions can guide approaches to consent that are context sensitive and that maximize achievable goals.

Comparison of Approaches for Notification and Authorization in Pragmatic Clinical Research Evaluating Commonly Used Medical Practices

BACKGROUND

For pragmatic clinical research comparing commonly used treatments, questions exist about if and how to notify participants about it and secure their authorization for participation.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how patients react when they seek clinical care and encounter one of several different pragmatic clinical research studies.

RESEARCH DESIGN

In an online survey using a between-subjects experimental design, respondents read and responded to 1 of 24 hypothetical research scenarios reflecting different types of studies and approaches to notification and authorization (eg, general notification, oral consent, written consent).

SUBJECTS

English-speaking US adults 18 years and older.

MEASURES

Willingness to participate in the hypothetical study, acceptability of the notification and authorization approach, understanding of the study, perceptions of benefit/harm, trust, and perception of amount of study information received.

RESULTS

Willingness to participate did not differ by notification and authorization approach. Some (21%-36%) of the patients randomized to general notification with an explicit opt-out provision were not aware they would be enrolled by default. Acceptability was greatest for and similar among notification and authorization approaches that actively engaged the patient (eg, oral or written consent) and lower for approaches with less engagement (eg, general notification). Problems of understanding were found among 20%-55% of respondents, depending on the particular scenario. Most respondents (77%-94%) felt that participation in the hypothetical study posed no risks of harm to their health or privacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Current attitudes about notification and authorization approaches and difficulties understanding pragmatic clinical research pose significant challenges for pragmatic research. Data from this study provide a starting point to developing solutions to these surprisingly complex issues.

Is it important to disclose how treatments are selected in clinical research and clinical care?

BACKGROUND

Current practice and policies maintain that it is very important to disclose to potential research subjects that their treatment will be selected by randomization. In contrast, it typically is not considered important to disclose to patients how doctors select their treatment. Unfortunately, when the available treatment options are similar to one another, this approach has the potential to inadvertently undermine both clinical research and clinical care. Hence, it is important to assess whether, in the context of similar treatment options, individuals support current practice of using very different disclosure practices in research and care.

METHODS

Respondents were randomly presented with either (1) a "drug" scenario involving two medications for hypertension (called CTD and TRT) whose risk-benefit profiles are very similar, or (2) a "dose timing" scenario involving morning versus nighttime dosing of the same antihypertensive. Respondents were asked whether, in the presented scenario, they agree, using a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree), that it is important to disclose to potential research subjects that whether they receive CTD or TRT/AM or PM dosing will be determined by randomization. Respondents were also asked whether they agree, using the same 7-point scale, that it is important to disclose to patients who face the same treatment options how their doctor will decide whether they receive CTD or TRT/AM or PM dosing.

RESULTS

The survey was sent to 3330 online GfK KnowledgePanel members and completed by 2130 (response rate, 64.0%). Respondents indicated that it is somewhat important to disclose to potential subjects that whether they receive CTD or TRT/AM or PM dosing will be determined by randomization (mean, 5.10 [95% CI, 5.02 to 5.17]). Respondents also indicated that it is slightly more important to disclose to patients who face the same treatment options how the doctor will decide whether they receive CTD or TRT/AM or PM dosing (mean, 5.29 [95% CI, 5.22 to 5.36]; p < .001). In addition, 66.4% indicated that, in the setting of similar options, it is equally important to disclose how treatment is selected in research and care, 20.5% indicated it is more important to disclose this information in clinical care, and 13.1% indicated it is more important to disclose it in research.

CONCLUSION

When the available options are similar to each other, individuals do not support current practice and policies that maintain that disclosure of how treatments are selected is very important in clinical research but not important in clinical care. Future research will be needed to evaluate the feasibility of developing disclosure practices and policies for this context that are consistent with individuals' views.

Patients' beliefs regarding informed consent for low-risk pragmatic trials

BACKGROUND

The requirement to obtain written informed consent may undermine the potential of pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) to improve evidence-based care. This requirement could compromise trials statistical power or even force it to close them down prematurely. However, recent data from the U.S. and Spain suggest that a majority of the public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present manuscript assesses whether this view is shared by patients.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing 2 drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. This web-based survey was conducted in May 2016. Two-thousand and eight adults who were representative of the Spanish population participated in the survey (response rate: 61%). Of these 2008 respondents, 338 indicated that they had been diagnosed with hypertension and were being treated with prescription medicines for this condition at the time of responding to the survey. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification.

RESULTS

Overall, 74% of the 338 patient respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, general notification received significantly more support (30.6%-44.7%) than verbal consent (13.3%-17.6%). 43% of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent.

CONCLUSIONS

As in the survey of the general public, more patients endorsed written consent than the alternative option. However, two factors suggest that a different approach to written consent should be investigated for low-risk pRCTs: a) a substantial minority of respondents supported general notification, b) data from the US have shown that most patients who prefer written consent are willing to forego it if obtaining written consent makes the trial too difficult to be conducted; and c) 2016 CIOMS guidelines endorse waivers of consent when the trial fulfills specific conditions. Surveys in other EU countries are needed to assess what patients believe towards pRCTs. If similar results to that reported in this study are found, it is foreseeable that with educational efforts, general notification could be an acceptable and widespread approach to the conduct of low-risk pRCTs.

Methodological and Ethical Issues in Pediatric Medication Safety Research

In May 2016, the Eshelman School of Pharmacy at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened the PharmSci conference to address the topic of "methodological and ethical issues in pediatric medication safety research." A multidisciplinary group of experts representing a diverse array of perspectives, including those of the US Food and Drug Administration, children's hospitals, and academia, identified important considerations for pediatric medication safety research and opportunities to advance the field. This executive summary describes current challenges that clinicians and researchers encounter related to pediatric medication safety research and identifies innovative and ethically sound methodologies to address these challenges to improve children's health. This article addresses 5 areas: (1) pediatric drug development and drug trials; (2) conducting comparative effectiveness research in pediatric populations; (3) child and parent engagement on study teams; (4) improving communication with children and parents; and (5) assessing child-reported outcomes and adverse drug events.

Patients' views of consent in clinical trials for acute myocardial infarction: impact of trial design

OBJECTIVE

Seeking prospective informed consent is difficult in clinical trials for emergent conditions such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Prior data suggest that enrolment decisions of patients are often poorly informed in AMI trials but that patients prefer to be asked permission before enrolment. It is unknown whether this is true across trial designs or in comparative effectiveness research (CER) with approved treatments.

METHODS

Structured interviews were conducted with 30 patients with AMI. Participants considered three scenarios: (1) a CER trial of approved antiplatelet drugs; (2) a placebo-controlled trial of a novel drug to reduce myocardial injury and (3) a CER trial of an intra-aortic balloon pump versus medication. Participants were asked their desired involvement in enrolment decisions and willingness to participate. Descriptive analysis was performed of Likert scale data, and qualitative descriptive analysis was performed of textual data.

RESULTS

Across scenarios, most participants (73%-80%) preferred to be asked permission prior to trial enrolment. Reasons for involvement included wanting to be the decision maker and a desire for transparency. Willingness to enrol was affected by trial type. Fewer participants stated they would likely enrol in a CER procedural trial than in a CER trial of approved medications (p=0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that patients prefer prospective involvement in enrolment decisions to enrolment without consent across trial types. However, their desire to participate was affected by trial type. There is a need to develop and evaluate context-sensitive approaches to consent in AMI trials that account for both the acuity of the situation and trial characteristics.

Research on Medical Practices: Why Patients Consider Participating and the Investigational Misconception

Understanding how patients decide whether to enroll in research can help improve educational materials, protocols, and recruitment rates. However, little is known about patients' willingness to participate in research on medical practices (ROMP), or studies comparing interventions within usual care. We assessed willingness to consider participating in ROMP by surveying 1095 adults in the United States, of whom 834 answered at least one open-ended question about their reasons for being willing or unwilling to consider participating in two scenarios involving ROMP. Most respondents were willing to consider participating in the research scenarios. The most commonly cited reasons for being willing to consider participating included benefit to others and oneself; the top reasons for being unwilling to consider participating included belief that the research was unsafe and an unfavorable view of experimentation. Responses also revealed misconceptions about ROMP among both those who were willing and unwilling to consider participating. Because these misconceptions may present an obstacle to recruiting participants in ROMP, there may be a need for educational initiatives to clarify the nature of these types of studies.

Can Appealing to Patient Altruism Reduce Overuse of Health Care Services? An Experimental Survey

BACKGROUND

A challenge to reducing overuse of health services is communicating recommendations against unnecessary health services to patients. The predominant approach has been to highlight the limited benefit and potential harm of such services for that patient, but the prudent use of health resources can also benefit others. Whether appealing to patient altruism can reduce overuse is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether altruistic appeals reduce hypothetical requests for overused services and affect physician ratings.

DESIGN

Experimental survey using hypothetical vignettes describing three overused health services (antibiotics for acute sinusitis, imaging for acute low back pain, and annual exams for healthy adults).

PARTICIPANTS

U.S. adults recruited from Research Now, an online panel of individuals compensated for performing academic and marketing research surveys.

INTERVENTIONS

In the control version of the vignettes, the physician's rationale for recommending against the service was the minimal benefit and potential for harm. In the altruism version, the rationale additionally included potential benefit to others by forgoing that service.

MAIN MEASURES

Differences in requests for overused services and physician ratings between participants randomized to the control and altruism versions of the vignettes.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 1001 participants were included in the final analyses. There were no significant differences in requests for overused services for any of the clinical scenarios (P values ranged from 0.183 to 0.547). Physician ratings were lower in the altruism version for the acute sinusitis (6.68 vs. 7.03, P = 0.012) and back pain scenarios (6.14 vs. 6.83, P < 0.001), and marginally lower for the healthy adult scenario (5.27 vs. 5.57, P = 0.084).

CONCLUSIONS

In this experimental survey, altruistic appeals delivered by physicians did not reduce requests for overused services, and resulted in more negative physician ratings. Further studies are warranted to determine whether alternative methods of appealing to patient altruism can reduce overuse.

Public preferences on written informed consent for low-risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain

Aims

Pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) collect data that have the potential to improve medical care significantly. However, these trials may be undermined by the requirement to obtain written informed consent, which can decrease accrual and increase selection bias. Recent data suggest that the majority of the US public endorses written consent for low‐risk pRCTs. The present study was designed to assess whether this view is specific to the US.

Methods

The study took the form of a cross‐sectional, probability‐based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent vs. verbal consent or general notification for two low‐risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and hypothetical recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent vs. the alternatives.

Results

A total of 2008 adults sampled from a probability‐based online panel responded to the web‐based survey conducted in May 2016 (response rate: 61%). Overall, 77% of respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, the alternative of general notification received significantly more support (28.7–37.1%) than the alternative of verbal consent (12.7–14.0%) (P = 0.001). Forty per cent of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent.

Conclusions

The results suggested that, rather than attempting to waive written consent, current pRCTs should focus on developing ways to implement written consent that provide sufficient information without undermining recruitment or increasing selection bias. The finding that around 40% of respondents endorsed general notification over written consent raises the possibility that, with educational efforts, the majority of Spaniards might accept general notification for low‐risk pRCTs.

Targeted Consent for Research on Standard of Care Interventions in the Emergency Setting

OBJECTIVES

There has been significant debate over what consent process, if any, should be used for clinical trials that compare two or more interventions within the standard of care. Some claim that all clinical trials should obtain in-depth research consent because they use subjects to obtain data for the benefit of future patients. Others argue that clinical trials that are limited to interventions within the standard of care do not need to obtain research consent at all. Settling this debate is especially challenging in the emergency setting. The potential for significant morbidity and mortality provides a strong reason to obtain research consent for standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. Yet, the emergency setting also introduces significant barriers to traditional in-depth research consent. The present article considers to what extent a targeted consent process can resolve these tensions.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We first identified the ethical goals that are promoted by obtaining consent for standard-of-care research and the barriers to obtaining consent that arise in the emergency setting. We then evaluated whether, despite the barriers, it is possible to develop a targeted consent process that promotes the goals for consent in the context of standard-of-care trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted consent offers an ethically appropriate way to obtain consent for many standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. For studies subject to U.S. regulations, and those subject to other regulations that include similar consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure and written form provide a way to satisfy research regulations without blocking valuable studies. For trials that qualify for a waiver of the consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure is preferable to waiving consent, provided a slight delay is consistent with appropriate care, and there is a capacitated patient or surrogate available.

Factors affecting willingness to share electronic health data among California consumers

Background

Robust technology infrastructure is needed to enable learning health care systems to improve quality, access, and cost. Such infrastructure relies on the trust and confidence of individuals to share their health data for healthcare and research. Few studies have addressed consumers’ views on electronic data sharing and fewer still have explored the dual purposes of healthcare and research together. The objective of the study is to explore factors that affect consumers’ willingness to share electronic health information for healthcare and research.

Methods

This study involved a random-digit dial telephone survey of 800 adult Californians conducted in English and Spanish. Logistic regression was performed using backward selection to test for significant (p-value ≤ 0.05) associations of each explanatory variable with the outcome variable.

Results

The odds of consent for electronic data sharing for healthcare decreased as Likert scale ratings for EHR impact on privacy worsened, odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI [0.60, 0.90]; security, OR = 0.80, 95% CI [0.66, 0.98]; and quality, OR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.46–0.75]. The odds of consent for sharing for research was greater for those who think EHR will improve research quality, OR = 11.26, 95% CI [4.13, 30.73]; those who value research benefit over privacy OR = 2.72, 95% CI [1.55, 4.78]; and those who value control over research benefit OR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.26, 0.94].

Conclusions

Consumers’ choices about electronically sharing health information are affected by their attitudes toward EHRs as well as beliefs about research benefit and individual control. Design of person-centered interventions utilizing electronically collected health information, and policies regarding data sharing should address these values of importance to people. Understanding of these perspectives is critical for leveraging health data to support learning health care systems.