22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patient data and patient rights: Swiss healthcare stakeholders’ ethical awareness regarding large patient data sets – a qualitative study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There is a growing interest in aggregating more biomedical and patient data into large health data sets for research and public benefits. However, collecting and processing patient data raises new ethical issues regarding patient’s rights, social justice and trust in public institutions. The aim of this empirical study is to gain an in-depth understanding of the awareness of possible ethical risks and corresponding obligations among those who are involved in projects using patient data, i.e. healthcare professionals, regulators and policy makers.

          Methods

          We used a qualitative design to examine Swiss healthcare stakeholders’ experiences and perceptions of ethical challenges with regard to patient data in real-life settings where clinical registries are sponsored, created and/or used. A semi-structured interview was carried out with 22 participants (11 physicians, 7 policy-makers, 4 ethical committee members) between July 2014 and January 2015. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed using a thematic method derived from Grounded Theory.

          Results

          All interviewees were concerned as a matter of priority with the needs of legal and operating norms for the collection and use of data, whereas less interest was shown in issues regarding patient agency, the need for reciprocity, and shared governance in the management and use of clinical registries’ patient data. This observed asymmetry highlights a possible tension between public and research interests on the one hand, and the recognition of patients’ rights and citizens’ involvement on the other.

          Conclusions

          The advocation of further health-related data sharing on the grounds of research and public interest, without due regard for the perspective of patients and donors, could run the risk of fostering distrust towards healthcare data collections. Ultimately, this could diminish the expected social benefits. However, rather than setting patient rights against public interest, new ethical approaches could strengthen both concurrently. On a normative level, this study thus provides material from which to develop further ethical reflection towards a more cooperative approach involving patients and citizens in the governance of their health-related big data.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-018-0261-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Making sense of qualitative data analysis: an introduction with illustrations from DIPEx (personal experiences of health and illness).

          This paper outlines an approach to analysing qualitative textual data from interviews and discusses how to ensure analytic procedures are appropriately rigorous. Qualitative data analysis should begin at an early stage in data collection and be highly systematic. It is important to identify issues that emerge during the data collection and analysis as well as those that the researcher may have anticipated (from reading or experience). Analysis is very time-consuming, but careful sampling, the collection of rich material and analytic depth mean that a relatively small number of cases can generate insights that apply well beyond the confines of the study. One particular approach to thematic analysis is introduced with examples from the DIPEx (personal experiences of health and illness) project, which collects video- and audio-taped interviews that are freely accessible through http://www.dipex.org. Qualitative analysis of patients' perspectives of illness can illuminate numerous issues that are important for medical education, some of which are unlikely to arise in the clinical encounter. Qualitative studies can also cover a much broader range of experiences - of both common and rare disease - than clinicians will see in practice. The DIPEx website is based on qualitative analysis of collections of interviews, illustrated with hundreds of video and audio clips, and is an innovative resource for medical education.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records.

            To assess patients' desire for granular level privacy control over which personal health information should be shared, with whom, and for what purpose; and whether these preferences vary based on sensitivity of health information.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Transforming Evidence Generation to Support Health and Health Care Decisions.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +41-79-332-6756 , corine.moutondorey@ibme.uzh.ch
                baumann@ethik.uzh.ch
                biller-andorno@ibme.uzh.ch
                Journal
                BMC Med Ethics
                BMC Med Ethics
                BMC Medical Ethics
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6939
                7 March 2018
                7 March 2018
                2018
                : 19
                : 20
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0650, GRID grid.7400.3, Institute of Biomedical Ethics and Medical History (IBME), , University of Zurich, ; Winterthurerstrasse 30, CH-8006 Zurich, Switzerland
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0650, GRID grid.7400.3, Philosophy Seminar, , University of Zurich, ; Zollikerstrasse 117, Zürich, CH-8008 Switzerland
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5513-1655
                Article
                261
                10.1186/s12910-018-0261-x
                5842517
                29514635
                468b8953-ecb6-4a46-a33a-69bbc1664d45
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 21 April 2017
                : 28 February 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Käthe Zingg-Schwichtenberg Fonds
                Award ID: KZS 19/13
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Medicine
                agency,ethics,healthcare stakeholders,health data,justice,patient rights,reciprocity,clinical registries

                Comments

                Comment on this article