与重复使用卫生数据有关的伦理做法:对患者登记的评估。

IF 7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Olmo R van den Akker, Susanne Stark, Daniel Strech
{"title":"与重复使用卫生数据有关的伦理做法:对患者登记的评估。","authors":"Olmo R van den Akker, Susanne Stark, Daniel Strech","doi":"10.1186/s12916-024-03799-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As routinely collected patient data have become increasingly accessible over the years, more attention has been directed at the ethics of using such data for research. Patient data is often available to researchers through patient registries that typically collect data of patients with a specific condition. While ethical guidelines for using patient data are presented frequently in the literature, it is currently unknown how patient registries implement the recommendations from these guidelines in practice and how they communicate their practices. In this project, we assessed to what extent a sample of 51 patient registries provides information about a range of ethics practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for patient registries in the resource database of the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). Our ethics reporting checklist was based on three sources: the Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool (REQueST), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) guide for good registry practices, and a systematic review of the principles and norms related to health data sharing by Kalkman and colleagues. The checklist includes 26 questions about five ethics components: governance, conflicts of interest, informed consent, privacy and data protection, and use-and-access.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found substantial heterogeneity in the way patient registries provide information about ethics practices. Patient registries often mentioned their governance structure and any potential conflicts of interests but typically did not describe the responsibilities and rights allocated to their funders. Information about informed consent was often provided to patients, but the available documents often lacked relevant information like the benefits and risks of participation. Privacy and data protection and use-and-access policies were typically discussed but not very concretely.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We conclude that registries typically provide information about key ethics practices such as governance, conflicts of interest, informed consent, privacy and data protection, and use-and-access procedures, but this information is often not as detailed as recommended in existing guidelines. The ethics reporting checklist we designed could be helpful for the ethical assessments of patient registries and other types of registries in the future as well as for self-assessment of registries aiming to improve their ethics practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":9188,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medicine","volume":"22 1","pages":"577"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11619252/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethics practices associated with reusing health data: an assessment of patient registries.\",\"authors\":\"Olmo R van den Akker, Susanne Stark, Daniel Strech\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12916-024-03799-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As routinely collected patient data have become increasingly accessible over the years, more attention has been directed at the ethics of using such data for research. Patient data is often available to researchers through patient registries that typically collect data of patients with a specific condition. While ethical guidelines for using patient data are presented frequently in the literature, it is currently unknown how patient registries implement the recommendations from these guidelines in practice and how they communicate their practices. In this project, we assessed to what extent a sample of 51 patient registries provides information about a range of ethics practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for patient registries in the resource database of the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). Our ethics reporting checklist was based on three sources: the Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool (REQueST), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) guide for good registry practices, and a systematic review of the principles and norms related to health data sharing by Kalkman and colleagues. The checklist includes 26 questions about five ethics components: governance, conflicts of interest, informed consent, privacy and data protection, and use-and-access.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found substantial heterogeneity in the way patient registries provide information about ethics practices. Patient registries often mentioned their governance structure and any potential conflicts of interests but typically did not describe the responsibilities and rights allocated to their funders. Information about informed consent was often provided to patients, but the available documents often lacked relevant information like the benefits and risks of participation. Privacy and data protection and use-and-access policies were typically discussed but not very concretely.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We conclude that registries typically provide information about key ethics practices such as governance, conflicts of interest, informed consent, privacy and data protection, and use-and-access procedures, but this information is often not as detailed as recommended in existing guidelines. The ethics reporting checklist we designed could be helpful for the ethical assessments of patient registries and other types of registries in the future as well as for self-assessment of registries aiming to improve their ethics practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medicine\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"577\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11619252/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03799-w\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03799-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:多年来,随着常规收集的患者数据越来越容易获得,越来越多的注意力集中在使用这些数据进行研究的伦理问题上。研究人员通常可以通过患者登记处获得患者数据,这些登记处通常收集患有特定疾病的患者的数据。虽然文献中经常提出使用患者数据的伦理指南,但目前尚不清楚患者登记处如何在实践中实施这些指南中的建议以及他们如何沟通他们的实践。在这个项目中,我们评估了51个患者登记的样本在多大程度上提供了关于一系列道德实践的信息。方法:我们在欧洲药物流行病学和药物警戒中心网络(ENCePP)的资源数据库中检索患者登记。我们的道德报告清单基于三个来源:注册表评估和质量标准工具(REQueST)、医疗保健研究和质量机构(AHRQ)良好注册表实践指南,以及Kalkman及其同事对健康数据共享相关原则和规范的系统审查。这份清单包括26个问题,涉及5个道德组成部分:治理、利益冲突、知情同意、隐私和数据保护以及使用和访问。结果:我们发现患者登记提供伦理实践信息的方式存在很大的异质性。患者登记经常提到他们的治理结构和任何潜在的利益冲突,但通常没有描述分配给资助者的责任和权利。通常会向患者提供有关知情同意的信息,但现有文件往往缺乏参与的好处和风险等相关信息。隐私和数据保护以及使用和访问策略是典型的讨论,但不是很具体。结论:我们的结论是,注册中心通常提供有关关键道德实践的信息,如治理、利益冲突、知情同意、隐私和数据保护以及使用和访问程序,但这些信息通常不像现有指南中建议的那样详细。我们设计的伦理报告清单可以帮助将来对患者登记和其他类型登记进行伦理评估,以及对旨在改善其伦理实践的登记进行自我评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethics practices associated with reusing health data: an assessment of patient registries.

Background: As routinely collected patient data have become increasingly accessible over the years, more attention has been directed at the ethics of using such data for research. Patient data is often available to researchers through patient registries that typically collect data of patients with a specific condition. While ethical guidelines for using patient data are presented frequently in the literature, it is currently unknown how patient registries implement the recommendations from these guidelines in practice and how they communicate their practices. In this project, we assessed to what extent a sample of 51 patient registries provides information about a range of ethics practices.

Methods: We searched for patient registries in the resource database of the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). Our ethics reporting checklist was based on three sources: the Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool (REQueST), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) guide for good registry practices, and a systematic review of the principles and norms related to health data sharing by Kalkman and colleagues. The checklist includes 26 questions about five ethics components: governance, conflicts of interest, informed consent, privacy and data protection, and use-and-access.

Results: We found substantial heterogeneity in the way patient registries provide information about ethics practices. Patient registries often mentioned their governance structure and any potential conflicts of interests but typically did not describe the responsibilities and rights allocated to their funders. Information about informed consent was often provided to patients, but the available documents often lacked relevant information like the benefits and risks of participation. Privacy and data protection and use-and-access policies were typically discussed but not very concretely.

Conclusions: We conclude that registries typically provide information about key ethics practices such as governance, conflicts of interest, informed consent, privacy and data protection, and use-and-access procedures, but this information is often not as detailed as recommended in existing guidelines. The ethics reporting checklist we designed could be helpful for the ethical assessments of patient registries and other types of registries in the future as well as for self-assessment of registries aiming to improve their ethics practices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medicine
BMC Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.10%
发文量
435
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medicine is an open access, transparent peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is the flagship journal of the BMC series and publishes outstanding and influential research in various areas including clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities. In addition to research articles, the journal also publishes stimulating debates, reviews, unique forum articles, and concise tutorials. All articles published in BMC Medicine are included in various databases such as Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAS, Citebase, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, OAIster, SCImago, Scopus, SOCOLAR, and Zetoc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信