20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patient and public attitudes towards informed consent models and levels of awareness of Electronic Health Records in the UK

      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.

          Highlights

          • Most participants would prefer to opt-in before their identifiable records are used.

          • Half of participants would share their de-identified records under implicit consent.

          • A low awareness of EHRs persists among participants.

          • Participants who were aware of EHRs were more willing to share de-identified data.

          • Awareness and consent expectations vary by socio-demographic characteristics.

          Abstract

          Background

          The development of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) forms an integral part of the information strategy for the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, with the aim of facilitating health information exchange for patient care and secondary use, including research and healthcare planning. Implementing EHR systems requires an understanding of patient expectations for consent mechanisms and consideration of public awareness towards information sharing as might be made possible through integrated EHRs across primary and secondary health providers.

          Objectives

          To explore levels of public awareness about EHRs and to examine attitudes towards different consent models with respect to sharing identifiable and de-identified records for healthcare provision, research and planning.

          Methods

          A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was administered to adult patients and members of the public in primary and secondary care clinics in West London, UK in 2011. In total, 5331 individuals participated in the survey, and 3157 were included in the final analysis.

          Results

          The majority (91%) of respondents expected to be explicitly asked for consent for their identifiable records to be accessed for health provision, research or planning. Half the respondents (49%) did not expect to be asked for consent before their de-identified records were accessed. Compared with White British respondents, those from all other ethnic groups were more likely to anticipate their permission would be obtained before their de-identified records were used. Of the study population, 59% reported already being aware of EHRs before the survey. Older respondents and individuals with complex patterns of interaction with healthcare services were more likely to report prior awareness of EHRs. Individuals self-identifying as belonging to ethnic groups other than White British, and those with lower educational qualifications were less likely to report being aware of EHRs than White British respondents and respondents with degree-level education, respectively. Those who reported being aware of EHRs were less likely to say they expected explicit consent to be sought before use of their de-identified record.

          Conclusions

          A large number of patients remain unaware of EHRs, while preference for implicit consent is stronger among those who report previous awareness. Differences in awareness levels and consent expectations between groups with different socio-demographic characteristics suggest that public education and information campaigns should target specific groups to increase public awareness and ensure meaningful informed consent mechanisms.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review

          Objectives To determine whether informed consent introduces selection bias in prospective observational studies using data from medical records, and consent rates for such studies. Design Systematic review. Data sources Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library up to March 2008, reference lists from pertinent articles, and searches of electronic citations. Study selection Prospective observational studies reporting characteristics of participants and non-participants approached for informed consent to use their medical records. Studies were selected independently in duplicate; a third reviewer resolved disagreements. Data extraction Age, sex, race, education, income, or health status of participants and non-participants, the participation rate in each study, and susceptibility of these calculations to threats of selection and reporting bias. Results Of 1650 citations 17 unique studies met inclusion criteria and had analysable data. Across all outcomes there were differences between participants and non-participants; however, there was a lack of consistency in the direction and the magnitude of effect. Of 161?604 eligible patients, 66.9% consented to use of data from their medical records. Conclusions Significant differences between participants and non-participants may threaten the validity of results from observational studies that require consent for use of data from medical records. To ensure that legislation on privacy does not unduly bias observational studies using medical records, thoughtful decision making by research ethics boards on the need for mandatory consent is necessary.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research.

            Jane Kaye (2011)
            Next-generation sequencing and global data sharing challenge many of the governance mechanisms currently in place to protect the privacy of research participants. These challenges will make it more difficult to guarantee anonymity for participants, provide information to satisfy the requirements of informed consent, and ensure complete withdrawal from research when requested. To move forward, we need to improve the current governance systems for research so that they are responsive to individual privacy concerns but can also be effective at a global level. We need to develop a system of e-governance that can complement existing governance systems but that places greater reliance on the use of technology to ensure compliance with ethical and legal requirements. These new governance structures must be able to address the concerns of research participants while at the same time ensuring effective data sharing that promotes public trust in genomics research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patterns of consent in epidemiologic research: evidence from over 25,000 responders.

              Ethical guidelines in the United Kingdom require written consent from participants in epidemiologic studies for follow-up or review of medical records. This may cause bias in samples used for follow-up or medical record review. The authors analyzed data from seven general population surveys conducted in the United Kingdom (1996-2002), to which over 25,000 people responded. Associations of age, gender, and symptom under investigation with consent to follow-up and consent to review of medical records were examined. Consent to follow-up was approximately 75-95% among survey responders under age 50 years but fell among older people, particularly females. Consent to follow-up was also higher among responders who had the symptom under investigation (pooled odds ratio = 1.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.36, 1.92). Consent to review of medical records followed a similar pattern. Patterns of consent were relatively consistent and represented a high proportion of responders. Males, younger people, and subjects reporting the symptom under investigation were more likely to give consent, and these groups may be overrepresented in follow-up samples or reviews of medical records. Although consent is high among responders, the additive effect of nonresponse and nonconsent can substantially reduce sample size and should be taken into account in epidemiologic study planning.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Int J Med Inform
                Int J Med Inform
                International Journal of Medical Informatics
                Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd
                1386-5056
                1872-8243
                1 April 2015
                April 2015
                : 84
                : 4
                : 237-247
                Affiliations
                [a ]NIHR CLAHRC for Northwest London, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
                [b ]Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
                [c ]Department of Primary Care & Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 020 33158144; fax: +44 020 87468887. c.papoutsi@ 123456imperial.ac.uk
                Article
                S1386-5056(15)00011-8
                10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.01.008
                4344220
                25649841
                ce1a8c91-3e74-422f-a7a5-7c065b7d5ec8
                © 2015 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 14 February 2014
                : 12 January 2015
                : 13 January 2015
                Categories
                Article

                electronic health records,informed consent,patient attitudes,information governance,policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article