The Academic Viewpoint on Patient Data Ownership in the Context of Big Data: Scoping Review.

big data ethics legal aspects ownership patient-generated health data

Journal

Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 08 2020
Historique:
received: 06 07 2020
accepted: 26 07 2020
revised: 24 07 2020
entrez: 19 8 2020
pubmed: 19 8 2020
medline: 23 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The ownership of patient information in the context of big data is a relatively new problem, which is not yet fully recognized by the medical academic community. The problem is interdisciplinary, incorporating legal, ethical, medical, and aspects of information and communication technologies, requiring a sophisticated analysis. However, no previous scoping review has mapped existing studies on the subject. This study aims to map and assess published studies on patient data ownership in the context of big data as viewed by the academic community. A scoping review was conducted based on the 5-stage framework outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and further developed by Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien. The organization and reporting of results of the scoping review were conducted according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and its extensions for Scoping Reviews). A systematic and comprehensive search of 4 scientific information databases, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Springer, was performed for studies published between January 2000 and October 2019. Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the studies and the extracted data. The review included 32 eligible articles authored by academicians that correspond to 3 focus areas: problem (ownership), area (health care), and context (big data). Five major aspects were studied: the scientific area of publications, aspects and academicians' perception of ownership in the context of big data, proposed solutions, and practical applications for data ownership issues in the context of big data. The aspects in which publications consider ownership of medical data are not clearly distinguished but can be summarized as ethical, legal, political, and managerial. The ownership of patient data is perceived primarily as a challenge fundamental to conducting medical research, including data sales and sharing, and to a lesser degree as a means of control, problem, threat, and opportunity also in view of medical research. Although numerous solutions falling into 3 categories, technology, law, and policy, were proposed, only 3 real applications were discussed. The issue of ownership of patient information in the context of big data is poorly researched; it is not addressed consistently and in its integrity, and there is no consensus on policy decisions and the necessary legal regulations. Future research should investigate the issue of ownership as a core research question and not as a minor fragment among other topics. More research is needed to increase the body of knowledge regarding the development of adequate policies and relevant legal frameworks in compliance with ethical standards. The combined efforts of multidisciplinary academic teams are needed to overcome existing gaps in the perception of ownership, the aspects of ownership, and the possible solutions to patient data ownership issues in the reality of big data.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The ownership of patient information in the context of big data is a relatively new problem, which is not yet fully recognized by the medical academic community. The problem is interdisciplinary, incorporating legal, ethical, medical, and aspects of information and communication technologies, requiring a sophisticated analysis. However, no previous scoping review has mapped existing studies on the subject.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to map and assess published studies on patient data ownership in the context of big data as viewed by the academic community.
METHODS
A scoping review was conducted based on the 5-stage framework outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and further developed by Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien. The organization and reporting of results of the scoping review were conducted according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and its extensions for Scoping Reviews). A systematic and comprehensive search of 4 scientific information databases, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Springer, was performed for studies published between January 2000 and October 2019. Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the studies and the extracted data.
RESULTS
The review included 32 eligible articles authored by academicians that correspond to 3 focus areas: problem (ownership), area (health care), and context (big data). Five major aspects were studied: the scientific area of publications, aspects and academicians' perception of ownership in the context of big data, proposed solutions, and practical applications for data ownership issues in the context of big data. The aspects in which publications consider ownership of medical data are not clearly distinguished but can be summarized as ethical, legal, political, and managerial. The ownership of patient data is perceived primarily as a challenge fundamental to conducting medical research, including data sales and sharing, and to a lesser degree as a means of control, problem, threat, and opportunity also in view of medical research. Although numerous solutions falling into 3 categories, technology, law, and policy, were proposed, only 3 real applications were discussed.
CONCLUSIONS
The issue of ownership of patient information in the context of big data is poorly researched; it is not addressed consistently and in its integrity, and there is no consensus on policy decisions and the necessary legal regulations. Future research should investigate the issue of ownership as a core research question and not as a minor fragment among other topics. More research is needed to increase the body of knowledge regarding the development of adequate policies and relevant legal frameworks in compliance with ethical standards. The combined efforts of multidisciplinary academic teams are needed to overcome existing gaps in the perception of ownership, the aspects of ownership, and the possible solutions to patient data ownership issues in the reality of big data.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32808934
pii: v22i8e22214
doi: 10.2196/22214
pmc: PMC7463395
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e22214

Informations de copyright

©Martin Mirchev, Iskra Mircheva, Albena Kerekovska. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 18.08.2020.

Références

J Law Biosci. 2017 Jan 15;4(1):94-132
pubmed: 28852559
J Biomed Inform. 2013 Oct;46(5):774-81
pubmed: 23872175
Biomed Inform Insights. 2016 Jan 19;8:1-10
pubmed: 26843812
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 11;13(10):e0204937
pubmed: 30308031
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Feb 09;11(2):e1003904
pubmed: 25664461
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2016 Apr;25(2):312-29
pubmed: 26957456
Nat Rev Genet. 2016 Aug 16;17(9):507-22
pubmed: 27528417
JAMA. 2013 Apr 3;309(13):1351-2
pubmed: 23549579
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Sep;129:242-247
pubmed: 31445262
Front Public Health. 2016 Feb 17;4:7
pubmed: 26925395
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Sep;33(9):1523-30
pubmed: 25201656
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Apr;23(e1):e42-8
pubmed: 26335984
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Aug;35(8):759-765
pubmed: 28474299
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013 Jul-Aug;35(4):332-8
pubmed: 23664503
JAMA. 2018 Apr 3;319(13):1317-1318
pubmed: 29532063
J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Sep;28 Suppl 3:S660-5
pubmed: 23797912
BMC Med. 2015 Sep 16;13:224
pubmed: 26377409
EMBO Rep. 2016 Aug;17(8):1103-5
pubmed: 27402546
JAMA. 2017 Oct 17;318(15):1433-1434
pubmed: 28973063
Am J Law Med. 2010;36(4):586-618
pubmed: 21302847
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;67(12):1291-4
pubmed: 25034198
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143
pubmed: 30453902
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6
pubmed: 26134548
Oral Oncol. 2019 Nov;98:8-12
pubmed: 31521885
JMIR Med Inform. 2016 Nov 21;4(4):e38
pubmed: 27872036
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018 Apr 16;2017:384-392
pubmed: 29854102
J Dent. 2018 Jul;74 Suppl 1:S15-S20
pubmed: 29929583
J Epidemiol. 2014;24(6):435-6
pubmed: 25327184
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Jul 1;95(3):890-894
pubmed: 26797535
JAMA. 2009 Mar 25;301(12):1282-4
pubmed: 19318657
Oncotarget. 2017 Nov 9;9(5):5665-5690
pubmed: 29464026
Front Med (Lausanne). 2019 Mar 01;6:34
pubmed: 30881956
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 06;19(1):e13
pubmed: 28062391
Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Apr;22(2):303-41
pubmed: 26002496
J Bioeth Inq. 2017 Dec;14(4):501-513
pubmed: 28983835
Seton Hall Law Rev. ;47(4):973-93
pubmed: 28820562
Nat Biotechnol. 2015 Sep;33(9):921-4
pubmed: 26348958
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20;5:69
pubmed: 20854677
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Apr;96:133-142
pubmed: 29103958
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Feb 12;21(2):e12439
pubmed: 30747714
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jun 20;21(6):e14184
pubmed: 31223119
Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 22;4:183
pubmed: 26693720
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015 Jul;24(3):256-71
pubmed: 26059952
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2015 Jul;19(4):1209-15
pubmed: 26218867
Lancet. 1996 Jan 6;347(8993):37-9
pubmed: 8531550
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Feb 09;16:15
pubmed: 26857112
Health Aff (Millwood). 1997 May-Jun;16(3):146-50
pubmed: 9141331
Lancet. 2016 Apr 2;387(10026):1374-1375
pubmed: 27115815
J Med Syst. 2016 Oct;40(10):218
pubmed: 27565509
Healthc Inform Res. 2013 Jun;19(2):79-85
pubmed: 23882412
J AHIMA. 2012 Oct;83(10):38-43; quiz 44
pubmed: 23061351
Virtual Mentor. 2012 Sep 01;14(9):724-32
pubmed: 23351352
Drug Discov Today. 2014 Apr;19(4):433-40
pubmed: 24183925
J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 Mar;15(3 Pt B):580-586
pubmed: 29402532
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2015 Jul;19(4):1193-208
pubmed: 26173222
Int J Obes (Lond). 2018 Dec;42(12):1951-1962
pubmed: 30022056
Semin Nucl Med. 2019 Mar;49(2):94-104
pubmed: 30819400

Auteurs

Martin Mirchev (M)

Department of Social Medicine and Healthcare Organization, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Varna, Varna, Bulgaria.

Iskra Mircheva (I)

Department of Social Medicine and Healthcare Organization, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Varna, Varna, Bulgaria.

Albena Kerekovska (A)

Department of Social Medicine and Healthcare Organization, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Varna, Varna, Bulgaria.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH