BackgroundCare.data was a programme of work led by NHS England for the extraction of patient-identifiable and coded information from general practitioner records for secondary uses. This study analyses the forms which enabled patients to opt out.MethodsTheoretical sampling and summative content analysis were used to collect and analyse dissent forms used by patients to opt out from care.data. Domains included basic information about the programme, types of objections and personal details required for identification purposes.ResultsOne hundred opt-out forms were analysed. Fifty-four forms (...) mentioned that this programme was run by NHS England. 81 forms provided two types of objections to data-sharing, and 15 provided only one objection. Only 26 forms mentioned that direct care would not be affected and 32 that patients maintain their right to opt back anytime. All but one of the opt-out forms we reviewed requested the name of the person wishing to opt out. 94 required a date of birth and 33 an NHS number. 82 required an address, 42 a telephone number and 7 an email address.ConclusionsNumbers of patients opting out should be treated with caution, because the variability of information provided and the varied options for dissent may have caused confusion among patients. To ensure that dissent is in accordance with individual preferences and moral values, we recommend that well-designed information material and standardised opt-out forms be developed for such data-sharing initiatives. (shrink)

The current scandal surrounds the global breast implant scare of silicone implants made by France's Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) Company. An ensuing review recognized that efforts in investigating the distress caused to so many women were hampered by a lack of reliable and comprehensive information about all the adverse incidents relating to PIP breast implants, as well as uncertainty about comparative data on similar products. One of the recommendations following the review was the investigation of the potential for re-establishing a (...) breast implant registry, which could facilitate the availability of adverse incident reporting in cases such as these. The insistence of compulsory inclusion in such registries would override the debate on informed consent in epidemiological studies and public health. The ethics of clinical research with its focus on individual consent is difficult to reconcile with the ethical requirements of research at a population level as in the case of registries. (shrink)

Introduction No consent for health and medical research is appropriate when the criteria for a waiver of consent are met, yet some ethics committees and data custodians still require informed consent. Methods A single-blind parallel-group randomised controlled trial: 1129 families of children born at a South Australian hospital were sent information explaining data linkage of childhood immunisation and hospital records for vaccine safety surveillance with 4 weeks to opt in or opt out by reply form, telephone or email. A subsequent (...) telephone interview gauged the intent of 1026 parents (91%) in relation to their actions and the sociodemographic differences between participants and non-participants in each arm. Results The participation rate was 21% (n=120/564) in the opt-in arm and 96% (n=540/565) in the opt-out arm (χ2 (1 df) = 567.7, p<0.001). Participants in the opt-in arm were more likely than non-participants to be older, married/de facto, university educated and of higher socioeconomic status. Participants in the opt-out arm were similar to non-participants, except men were more likely to opt out. Substantial proportions did not receive, understand or properly consider study invitations, and opting in or opting out behaviour was often at odds with parents' stated underlying intentions. Conclusions The opt-in approach resulted in low participation and a biased sample that would render any subsequent data linkage unfeasible, while the opt-out approach achieved high participation and a representative sample. The waiver of consent afforded under current privacy regulations for data linkage studies meeting all appropriate criteria should be granted by ethics committees, and supported by data custodians. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000332022. (shrink)

Objective: To determine the views of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and professionals in relation to confidentiality, consent and access to data within a proposed MS register in the UK. Design: Qualitative study using focus groups (10) and interviews (13). Setting: England and Northern Ireland. Participants: 68 people with MS, neurologists, MS nurses, health services management professionals, researchers, representatives from pharmaceutical companies and social care professionals. Results: People with MS expressed open and altruistic views towards the use of their personal (...) information to facilitate service provision and research, placing trust in responsible guardianship and legitimate use of their information. Participant’s proposed that people with MS should be able to select their individual level of involvement in a register using levels of consent. It was agreed that access to the register should be governed by a guardianship committee composed of a range of stakeholders. People with MS did not wish their details to be used by marketing agencies and did not consider this a legitimate use of their data. Whilst participants were positive of the role a register could play in promoting research, participants felt that access to data by pharmaceutical industries should be administered by the guardianship committee. People with MS are concerned should their employers be able to access their personal information. Professionals were more cautious than people with MS in their approach to the use of patient personal data within a register. Conclusions: Whilst all stakeholders were positive of the benefits of an MS register, development of such a resource must incorporate robust data security and guardianship measures in order to ensure that, whilst opportunities are maximised, risks to the privacy of individuals and legal challenges to professionals are avoided. (shrink)