» Articles » PMID: 35596210

Patient Consent Preferences on Sharing Personal Health Information During the COVID-19 Pandemic: "the More Informed We Are, the More Likely We Are to Help"

Overview
Journal BMC Med Ethics
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Medical Ethics
Date 2022 May 20
PMID 35596210
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Rapid ethical access to personal health information (PHI) to support research is extremely important during pandemics, yet little is known regarding patient preferences for consent during such crises. This follow-up study sought to ascertain whether there were differences in consent preferences between pre-pandemic times compared to during Wave 1 of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and to better understand the reasons behind these preferences.

Methods: A total of 183 patients in the pandemic cohort completed the survey via email, and responses were compared to the distinct pre-pandemic cohort (n = 222); all were patients of a large Canadian cancer center. The survey covered (a) broad versus study-specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out contact approach; (c) levels of comfort sharing with different recipients; (d) perceptions of commercialization; and (e) options to track use of information and be notified of results. Four focus groups (n = 12) were subsequently conducted to elucidate reasons motivating dominant preferences.

Results: Patients in the pandemic cohort were significantly more comfortable with sharing all information and biological samples (90% vs. 79%, p = 0.009), sharing information with the health care institution (97% vs. 83%, p < 0.001), sharing information with researchers at other hospitals (85% vs. 70%, p < 0.001), sharing PHI provincially (69% vs. 53%, p < 0.002), nationally (65% vs. 53%, p = 0.022) and internationally (48% vs. 39%, p = 0.024) compared to the pre-pandemic cohort. Discomfort with sharing information with commercial companies remained unchanged between the two cohorts (50% vs. 51% uncomfortable, p = 0.58). Significantly more pandemic cohort patients expressed a wish to track use of PHI (75% vs. 61%, p = 0.007), and to be notified of results (83% vs. 70%, p = 0.012). Thematic analysis uncovered that transparency was strongly desired on outside PHI use, particularly when commercialization was involved.

Conclusions: In pandemic times, patients were more comfortable sharing information with all parties, except with commercial entities, where levels of discomfort (~ 50%) remained unchanged. Focus groups identified that the ability to track and receive results of studies using one's PHI is an important way to reduce discomfort and increase trust. These findings meaningfully inform wider discussions on the use of personal health information for research during global crises.

Citing Articles

Stakeholders' perceptions of personal health data sharing: A scoping review.

Alam P, Bolio A, Lin L, Larson H PLOS Digit Health. 2024; 3(11):e0000652.

PMID: 39565781 PMC: 11578505. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000652.


Government Initiatives for Research Ethics During COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea.

Park Y, Kim O J Korean Med Sci. 2024; 39(12):e116.

PMID: 38565174 PMC: 10985498. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e116.


Health data sharing attitudes towards primary and secondary use of data: a systematic review.

Cascini F, Pantovic A, Al-Ajlouni Y, Puleo V, De Maio L, Ricciardi W EClinicalMedicine. 2024; 71:102551.

PMID: 38533128 PMC: 10963197. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102551.


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

Richter G, Trigui N, Caliebe A, Krawczak M Heliyon. 2024; 10(6):e27933.

PMID: 38509969 PMC: 10951576. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27933.


The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in "Sped up Science": Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype and in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Lipworth W, Kerridge I, Stewart C, Silva D, Upshur R J Bioeth Inq. 2023; 20(4):607-616.

PMID: 38064166 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-023-10289-w.


References
1.
Willison D, Swinton M, Schwartz L, Abelson J, Charles C, Northrup D . Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: insights from a public dialogue. BMC Med Ethics. 2008; 9:18. PMC: 2601042. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-9-18. View

2.
Joly Y, Dalpe G, So D, Birko S . Fair Shares and Sharing Fairly: A Survey of Public Views on Open Science, Informed Consent and Participatory Research in Biobanking. PLoS One. 2015; 10(7):e0129893. PMC: 4495996. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129893. View

3.
Watling C, Lingard L . Grounded theory in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 70. Med Teach. 2012; 34(10):850-61. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.704439. View

4.
Gobat N, Butler C, Mollison J, Francis N, Gal M, Harris V . What the public think about participation in medical research during an influenza pandemic: an international cross-sectional survey. Public Health. 2019; 177:80-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.07.005. View

5.
Patil S, Lu H, Saunders C, Potoglou D, Robinson N . Public preferences for electronic health data storage, access, and sharing - evidence from a pan-European survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016; 23(6):1096-1106. PMC: 5070520. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocw012. View