Secondary use of health care data and left-over biosamples within the 'Medical Informatics Initiative' (MII): a quasi-randomized controlled evaluation of patient perceptions and preferences regarding the consent process.
Broad consent
Consent implementation
Consent process
Patient preferences
‘Medical Informatics Initiative’
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 07 2022
15 07 2022
Historique:
received:
12
01
2022
accepted:
01
07
2022
entrez:
15
7
2022
pubmed:
16
7
2022
medline:
20
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Data collected during routine health care and ensuing analytical results bear the potential to provide valuable information to improve the overall health care of patients. However, little is known about how patients prefer to be informed about the possible usage of their routine data and/or biosamples for research purposes before reaching a consent decision. Specifically, we investigated the setting, the timing and the responsible staff for the information and consent process. We performed a quasi-randomized controlled trial and compared the method by which patients were informed either in the patient admission area following patient admission by the same staff member (Group A) or in a separate room by another staff member (Group B). The consent decision was hypothetical in nature. Additionally, we evaluated if there was the need for additional time after the information session and before taking the consent decision. Data were collected during a structured interview based on questionnaires where participants reflected on the information and consent process they went through. Questionnaire data were obtained from 157 participants in Group A and 106 participants in Group B. Overall, participants in both groups were satisfied with their experienced process and with the way information was provided. They reported that their (hypothetical) consent decision was freely made. Approximately half of the interested participants in Group B did not show up in the separate room, while all interested participants in Group A could be informed about the secondary use of their routine data and left-over samples. No participants, except for one in Group B, wanted to take extra time for their consent decision. The hypothetical consent rate for both routine data and left-over samples was very high in both groups. The willingness to support medical research by allowing the use of routine data and left-over samples seems to be widespread among patients. Information concerning this secondary data use may be given by trained administrative staff immediately following patient admission. Patients mainly prefer making a consent decision directly after information is provided and discussed. Furthermore, less patients are informed when the process is organized in a separate room.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Data collected during routine health care and ensuing analytical results bear the potential to provide valuable information to improve the overall health care of patients. However, little is known about how patients prefer to be informed about the possible usage of their routine data and/or biosamples for research purposes before reaching a consent decision. Specifically, we investigated the setting, the timing and the responsible staff for the information and consent process.
METHODS
We performed a quasi-randomized controlled trial and compared the method by which patients were informed either in the patient admission area following patient admission by the same staff member (Group A) or in a separate room by another staff member (Group B). The consent decision was hypothetical in nature. Additionally, we evaluated if there was the need for additional time after the information session and before taking the consent decision. Data were collected during a structured interview based on questionnaires where participants reflected on the information and consent process they went through.
RESULTS
Questionnaire data were obtained from 157 participants in Group A and 106 participants in Group B. Overall, participants in both groups were satisfied with their experienced process and with the way information was provided. They reported that their (hypothetical) consent decision was freely made. Approximately half of the interested participants in Group B did not show up in the separate room, while all interested participants in Group A could be informed about the secondary use of their routine data and left-over samples. No participants, except for one in Group B, wanted to take extra time for their consent decision. The hypothetical consent rate for both routine data and left-over samples was very high in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The willingness to support medical research by allowing the use of routine data and left-over samples seems to be widespread among patients. Information concerning this secondary data use may be given by trained administrative staff immediately following patient admission. Patients mainly prefer making a consent decision directly after information is provided and discussed. Furthermore, less patients are informed when the process is organized in a separate room.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35840947
doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-01922-6
pii: 10.1186/s12911-022-01922-6
pmc: PMC9287940
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
184Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Innov Health Inform. 2015 Nov 04;22(3):368-73
pubmed: 26577427
Methods Inf Med. 2018 Jul;57(S 01):e50-e56
pubmed: 30016818
Lancet. 2001 Nov 24;358(9295):1772-7
pubmed: 11734235
JAMA. 2004 Oct 6;292(13):1593-601
pubmed: 15467062
J Transl Med. 2018 Sep 14;16(1):256
pubmed: 30217236
Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(9):34-42
pubmed: 26305750
J Transl Med. 2020 Feb 17;18(1):86
pubmed: 32066455
Eur J Hum Genet. 2019 Jun;27(6):841-847
pubmed: 30683927
Biopreserv Biobank. 2014 Apr;12(2):106-12
pubmed: 24749877
Genet Med. 2016 Jul;18(7):663-71
pubmed: 26583683
Am J Hum Genet. 2017 Mar 2;100(3):414-427
pubmed: 28190457
Life Sci Soc Policy. 2020 Jan 6;16(1):1
pubmed: 31903508
Biopreserv Biobank. 2014 Dec;12(6):409-14
pubmed: 25496153
J Transl Med. 2015 Jun 04;13:176
pubmed: 26040848
Lancet Oncol. 2008 May;9(5):485-93
pubmed: 18452859
Public Health Ethics. 2011 Nov;4(3):226-235
pubmed: 22102849
Perspect Clin Res. 2017 Jul-Sep;8(3):107-112
pubmed: 28828304