Dataset Information

Consent for use of personal information for health research: do people with potentially stigmatizing health conditions and the general public differ in their opinions?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Stigma refers to a distinguishing personal trait that is perceived as or actually is physically, socially, or psychologically disadvantageous. Little is known about the opinion of those who have more or less stigmatizing health conditions regarding the need for consent for use of their personal information for health research.

Methods

We surveyed the opinions of people 18 years and older with seven health conditions. Participants were drawn from: physicians' offices and clinics in southern Ontario; and from a cross-Canada marketing panel of individuals with the target health conditions. For each of five research scenarios presented, respondents chose one of five consent choices: (1) no need for me to know; (2) notice with opt-out; (3) broad opt-in; (4) project-specific permission; and (5) this information should not be used. Consent choices were regressed onto: demographics; health condition; and attitude measures of privacy, disclosure concern, and the benefits of health research. We conducted focus groups to discuss possible reasons for observed consent choices.

Results

We observed substantial variation in the control that people wish to have over use of their personal information for research. However, consent choice profiles were similar across health conditions, possibly due to sampling bias. Research involving profit or requiring linkage of health information with income, education, or occupation were associated with more restrictive consent choices. People were more willing to link their health information with biological samples than with information about their income, occupation, or education.

Conclusions

The heterogeneity in consent choices suggests individuals should be offered some choice in use of their information for different types of health research, even if limited to selectively opting-out. Some of the implementation challenges could be designed into the interoperable electronic health record. However, many questions remain, including how best to capture the opinions of those who are more privacy sensitive.

SUBMITTER: Willison DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2724473 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Consent for use of personal information for health research: do people with potentially stigmatizing health conditions and the general public differ in their opinions?

Willison Donald J DJ Steeves Valerie V Charles Cathy C Schwartz Lisa L Ranford Jennifer J Agarwal Gina G Cheng Ji J Thabane Lehana L

BMC medical ethics 20090724

<h4>Background</h4>Stigma refers to a distinguishing personal trait that is perceived as or actually is physically, socially, or psychologically disadvantageous. Little is known about the opinion of those who have more or less stigmatizing health conditions regarding the need for consent for use of their personal information for health research.<h4>Methods</h4>We surveyed the opinions of people 18 years and older with seven health conditions. Participants were drawn from: physicians' offices and ...[more]

PMID: 19630941

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe role of consent for research use of health information is contentious. Most discussion has focused on when project-specific consent may be waived but, recently, a broader range of consent options has been entertained, including broad opt-in for multiple studies with restrictions and notification with opt-out. We sought to elicit public values in this matter and to work toward an agreement about a common approach to consent for use of personal information for health research through deliberative public dialogues.MethodsWe conducted seven day-long public dialogues, involving 98 participants across Canada. Immediately before and after each dialogue, participants completed a fixed-response questionnaire rating individuals' support for 3 approaches to consent in the abstract and their consent choices for 5 health research scenarios using personal information. They also rated how confident different safeguards made them feel that their information was being used responsibly.ResultsBroad opt-in consent for use of personal information garnered the greatest support in the abstract. When presented with specific research scenarios, no one approach to consent predominated. When profit was introduced into the scenarios, consent choices shifted toward greater control over use. Despite lively and constructive dialogues, and considerable shifting in opinion at the individual level, at the end of the day, there was no substantive aggregate movement in opinion. Personal controls were among the most commonly cited approaches to improving people's confidence in the responsible use of their information for research.ConclusionBecause no one approach to consent satisfied even a simple majority of dialogue participants and the importance placed on personal controls, a mechanism should be developed for documenting consent choice for different types of research, including ways for individuals to check who has accessed their medical record for purposes other than clinical care. This could be done, for example, through a web-based patient portal to their electronic health record. Researchers and policy makers should continue to engage the public to promote greater public understanding of the research process and to look for feasible alternatives to existing approaches to project-specific consent for observational research.

Project description:BackgroundIn studies publishing identifying personal information, obtaining consent is regarded as necessary, as it is impossible to ensure complete anonymity. However, current journal practices around specific points to consider when obtaining consent, the contents of consent forms and how consent forms are managed have not yet been fully examined. This study was conducted to identify potential issues surrounding consent to publish identifying personal information.MethodsContent analysis was carried out on instructions for authors and consent forms developed by academic journals in four fields (as classified by Journal Citation Reports): medicine general and internal, genetics and heredity, pediatrics, and psychiatry. An online questionnaire survey of editors working for journals that require the submission of consent forms was also conducted.ResultsInstructions for authors were reviewed for 491 academic journals (132 for medicine general and internal, 147 for genetics and heredity, 100 for pediatrics, and 112 for psychiatry). Approximately 40% (203: 74 for medicine general and internal, 31 for genetics and heredity, 58 for pediatrics, and 40 for psychiatry) stated that subject consent was necessary. The submission of consent forms was required by 30% (154) of the journals studied, and 10% (50) provided their own consent forms for authors to use. Two journals mentioned that the possible effects of publication on subjects should be considered. Many journal consent forms mentioned the difficulties in ensuring complete anonymity of subjects, but few addressed the study objective, the subjects' right to refuse consent and the withdrawal of consent. The main reason for requiring the submission of consent forms was to confirm that consent had been obtained.ConclusionApproximately 40% of journals required subject consent to be obtained. However, differences were observed depending on the fields. Specific considerations were not always documented. There is a need to address issues around the study objective, subjects' right to refuse consent and the withdrawal of consent. Whether responsibility for ensuring that the consent form has been signed lies with publishers also needs to be discussed.

Project description:US health care spending has continued to increase, and now accounts for more than 17% of the US economy. Despite the size and growth of this spending, little is known about how spending on each condition varies by age and across time.To systematically and comprehensively estimate US spending on personal health care and public health, according to condition, age and sex group, and type of care.Government budgets, insurance claims, facility surveys, household surveys, and official US records from 1996 through 2013 were collected and combined. In total, 183 sources of data were used to estimate spending for 155 conditions (including cancer, which was disaggregated into 29 conditions). For each record, spending was extracted, along with the age and sex of the patient, and the type of care. Spending was adjusted to reflect the health condition treated, rather than the primary diagnosis.Encounter with US health care system.National spending estimates stratified by condition, age and sex group, and type of care.From 1996 through 2013, $30.1 trillion of personal health care spending was disaggregated by 155 conditions, age and sex group, and type of care. Among these 155 conditions, diabetes had the highest health care spending in 2013, with an estimated $101.4 billion (uncertainty interval [UI], $96.7 billion-$106.5 billion) in spending, including 57.6% (UI, 53.8%-62.1%) spent on pharmaceuticals and 23.5% (UI, 21.7%-25.7%) spent on ambulatory care. Ischemic heart disease accounted for the second-highest amount of health care spending in 2013, with estimated spending of $88.1 billion (UI, $82.7 billion-$92.9 billion), and low back and neck pain accounted for the third-highest amount, with estimated health care spending of $87.6 billion (UI, $67.5 billion-$94.1 billion). The conditions with the highest spending levels varied by age, sex, type of care, and year. Personal health care spending increased for 143 of the 155 conditions from 1996 through 2013. Spending on low back and neck pain and on diabetes increased the most over the 18 years, by an estimated $57.2 billion (UI, $47.4 billion-$64.4 billion) and $64.4 billion (UI, $57.8 billion-$70.7 billion), respectively. From 1996 through 2013, spending on emergency care and retail pharmaceuticals increased at the fastest rates (6.4% [UI, 6.4%-6.4%] and 5.6% [UI, 5.6%-5.6%] annual growth rate, respectively), which were higher than annual rates for spending on inpatient care (2.8% [UI, 2.8%-2.8%] and nursing facility care (2.5% [UI, 2.5%-2.5%]).Modeled estimates of US spending on personal health care and public health showed substantial increases from 1996 through 2013; with spending on diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and low back and neck pain accounting for the highest amounts of spending by disease category. The rate of change in annual spending varied considerably among different conditions and types of care. This information may have implications for efforts to control US health care spending.

Project description:BackgroundA relentless flood of information accompanied the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. False news, conspiracy theories, and magical cures were shared with the general public at an alarming rate, which may lead to increased anxiety and stress levels and associated debilitating consequences.ObjectivesTo measure the level of COVID-19 information overload (COVIO) and assess the association between COVIO and sociodemographic characteristics among the general public.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted between April and May 2020 using a modified Cancer Information Overload scale. The survey was developed and posted on four social media platforms. The data were only collected from those who consented to participate. COVIO score was classified into high vs. low using the asymmetrical distribution as a guide and conducted a binary logistic regression to examine the factors associated with COVIO.ResultsA total number of 584 respondents participated in this study. The mean COVIO score of the respondents was 19.4 (±?4.0). Sources and frequency of receiving COVID-19 information were found to be significant predictors of COVIO. Participants who received information via the broadcast media were more likely to have high COVIO than those who received information via the social media (adjusted odds ratio ([aOR],14.599; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.608-132.559; p?=?0.017). Also, participants who received COVID-19 information every minute (aOR, 3.892; 95% CI, 1.124-13.480; p?=?0.032) were more likely to have high COVIO than those who received information every week.ConclusionThe source of information and the frequency of receiving COVID-19 information were significantly associated with COVIO. The COVID-19 information is often conflicting, leading to confusion and overload of information in the general population. This can have unfavorable effects on the measures taken to control the transmission and management of COVID-19 infection.

Dataset Information

Consent for use of personal information for health research: do people with potentially stigmatizing health conditions and the general public differ in their opinions?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Consent for use of personal information for health research: do people with potentially stigmatizing health conditions and the general public differ in their opinions?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets