探索同意在肺癌放疗中使用真实世界数据:公民陪审团对“知情选择退出”方法的决定。

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Arbaz Kapadi, Hannah Turner-Uaandja, Rebecca Holley, Kate Wicks, Leila Hamrang, Brian Turner, Tjeerd van Staa, Catherine Bowden, Annie Keane, Gareth Price, Corinne Faivre-Finn, David French, Caroline Sanders, Søren Holm, Sarah Devaney
{"title":"探索同意在肺癌放疗中使用真实世界数据:公民陪审团对“知情选择退出”方法的决定。","authors":"Arbaz Kapadi, Hannah Turner-Uaandja, Rebecca Holley, Kate Wicks, Leila Hamrang, Brian Turner, Tjeerd van Staa, Catherine Bowden, Annie Keane, Gareth Price, Corinne Faivre-Finn, David French, Caroline Sanders, Søren Holm, Sarah Devaney","doi":"10.1007/s10728-025-00510-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An emerging approach to complement randomised controlled trial (RCT) data in the development of radiotherapy treatments is to use routinely collected 'real-world' data (RWD). RWD is the data collected as standard-of-care about all patients during their usual cancer care pathway. Given the nature of this data, important questions remain about the permissibility and acceptability of using RWD in routine practice. We involved and engaged with patients, carers and the public in a two-day citizens' jury to understand their views and obtain decisions regarding two key issues: (1) preferred approaches to consent for the use of RWD within the context of patients receiving radiotherapy for lung cancer in RAPID-RT and (2) how RWD use should be best communicated to patients. Individual views were polled using questionnaires at various stages of the jury, whilst group discussion activities prompted further dialogue about the rationale behind choices of consent. Key decisions obtained from the jury include: (1) an opt-out approach to consent for the use of RWD; (2) the opt-out approach to consent should be informed. Furthermore, it was advised that information and communication regarding the consent process and use of RWD should be accessible, clear and available in a variety of formats. It is important that the consent process for patient data use is underpinned by principles of autonomy and transparency with clear channels of communication between those asking for and giving consent. Moreover, the process of seeking consent from patients should be proportionate to the risks presented from their participation.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Consent to Use Real-World Data in Lung Cancer Radiotherapy: Decision of a Citizens' Jury for an 'Informed Opt-Out' Approach.\",\"authors\":\"Arbaz Kapadi, Hannah Turner-Uaandja, Rebecca Holley, Kate Wicks, Leila Hamrang, Brian Turner, Tjeerd van Staa, Catherine Bowden, Annie Keane, Gareth Price, Corinne Faivre-Finn, David French, Caroline Sanders, Søren Holm, Sarah Devaney\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10728-025-00510-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>An emerging approach to complement randomised controlled trial (RCT) data in the development of radiotherapy treatments is to use routinely collected 'real-world' data (RWD). RWD is the data collected as standard-of-care about all patients during their usual cancer care pathway. Given the nature of this data, important questions remain about the permissibility and acceptability of using RWD in routine practice. We involved and engaged with patients, carers and the public in a two-day citizens' jury to understand their views and obtain decisions regarding two key issues: (1) preferred approaches to consent for the use of RWD within the context of patients receiving radiotherapy for lung cancer in RAPID-RT and (2) how RWD use should be best communicated to patients. Individual views were polled using questionnaires at various stages of the jury, whilst group discussion activities prompted further dialogue about the rationale behind choices of consent. Key decisions obtained from the jury include: (1) an opt-out approach to consent for the use of RWD; (2) the opt-out approach to consent should be informed. Furthermore, it was advised that information and communication regarding the consent process and use of RWD should be accessible, clear and available in a variety of formats. It is important that the consent process for patient data use is underpinned by principles of autonomy and transparency with clear channels of communication between those asking for and giving consent. Moreover, the process of seeking consent from patients should be proportionate to the risks presented from their participation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-025-00510-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-025-00510-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在放射治疗的发展中,一种补充随机对照试验(RCT)数据的新方法是使用常规收集的“真实世界”数据(RWD)。RWD是所有患者在常规癌症治疗过程中作为标准治疗收集的数据。鉴于这些数据的性质,在常规实践中使用RWD的许可性和可接受性仍然存在重要问题。在为期两天的公民陪审团中,我们与患者、护理人员和公众进行了接触,以了解他们的观点并就两个关键问题做出决定:(1)在接受RAPID-RT肺癌放疗的患者中使用RWD的首选同意方法;(2)如何最好地与患者沟通RWD的使用。评审团在不同阶段以问卷形式就个人意见进行调查,而小组讨论活动则促使人们就选择同意的理由进行进一步的对话。从评审团获得的关键决定包括:(1)选择退出方式同意使用RWD;(2)应告知选择退出同意方式。此外,委员会还建议,关于同意过程和使用RWD的信息和通信应易于获取、清晰并以各种形式提供。重要的是,患者数据使用的同意过程应以自主和透明的原则为基础,并在请求和给予同意的人之间建立明确的沟通渠道。此外,征求患者同意的过程应与患者参与所带来的风险成比例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring Consent to Use Real-World Data in Lung Cancer Radiotherapy: Decision of a Citizens' Jury for an 'Informed Opt-Out' Approach.

An emerging approach to complement randomised controlled trial (RCT) data in the development of radiotherapy treatments is to use routinely collected 'real-world' data (RWD). RWD is the data collected as standard-of-care about all patients during their usual cancer care pathway. Given the nature of this data, important questions remain about the permissibility and acceptability of using RWD in routine practice. We involved and engaged with patients, carers and the public in a two-day citizens' jury to understand their views and obtain decisions regarding two key issues: (1) preferred approaches to consent for the use of RWD within the context of patients receiving radiotherapy for lung cancer in RAPID-RT and (2) how RWD use should be best communicated to patients. Individual views were polled using questionnaires at various stages of the jury, whilst group discussion activities prompted further dialogue about the rationale behind choices of consent. Key decisions obtained from the jury include: (1) an opt-out approach to consent for the use of RWD; (2) the opt-out approach to consent should be informed. Furthermore, it was advised that information and communication regarding the consent process and use of RWD should be accessible, clear and available in a variety of formats. It is important that the consent process for patient data use is underpinned by principles of autonomy and transparency with clear channels of communication between those asking for and giving consent. Moreover, the process of seeking consent from patients should be proportionate to the risks presented from their participation.

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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.
×
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