Author:
Tosoni Sarah,Voruganti Indu,Lajkosz Katherine,Habal Flavio,Murphy Patricia,Wong Rebecca K. S.,Willison Donald,Virtanen Carl,Heesters Ann,Liu Fei-Fei
Abstract
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Health (social science),Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference39 articles.
1. Wakabayashi D. Google and the University of Chicago are sued over data sharing. New York Times 2019; https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/technology/google-university-chicago-data-sharing-lawsuit.html.
2. Schencker L. How much is too much to tell Google? Privacy lawsuit allenges U. of C. Medical Center went too far when sharing patient data. Chicago Tribune 2019; https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-lawsuit-university-of-chicago-google-patient-records-20190627-4vnmvfdnv5gcdl5fakgp5zwtna-story.html.
3. Kulynych J, Greely HT. Clinical genomics, big data, and electronic medical records: reconciling patient rights with research when privacy and science collide. J Law Biosci. 2017;4(1):94–132.
4. Caulfield T, Murdoch B. Genes, cells, and biobanks: yes, there’s still a consent problem. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(7):e2002654–e2002654.
5. Greely HT. To the Barricades! Am J Bioeth. 2010;10(9):1–2.
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献