Did I Tell You That? Ethical Issues Related to Using Computational Methods to Discover Non-Disclosed Patient Characteristics

Widespread availability of electronic health records coupled with sophisticated statistical methods offer great potential for a variety of applications for health and disease surveillance, developing predictive models and advancing decision support for clinicians. However, use of “big data” mining and discovery techniques has also raised ethical issues such as how to balance privacy and autonomy with the wider public benefits of data sharing. Furthermore, electronic data are being increasingly used to identify individual characteristics, which can be useful for clinical prediction and management, but were not previously disclosed to a clinician. This process in computer parlance is called electronic phenotyping, and has a number of ethical implications. Using the Belmont Report’s principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice as a framework, we examined the ethical issues posed by electronic phenotyping. Ethical issues identified include the ability of the patient to consent for the use of their information, the ability to suppress pediatric information, ensuring that the potential benefits justify the risks of harm to patients, and acknowledging that the clinician’s biases or stereotypes, conscious or unintended, may become a factor in the therapeutic interaction. We illustrate these issues with two vignettes, using the person characteristic of gender minority status (i.e., transgender identity) and health history characteristic of substance abuse. Data mining has the potential to uncover patient characteristics previously obscured, which can provide clinicians with beneficial clinical information. Hence, ethical guidelines must be updated to ensure that electronic phenotyping supports the principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.

[1]  S. Landers,et al.  Access to Health Care for Transgendered Persons: Results of a Needs Assessment in Boston , 2005 .

[2]  Groups experiment with digital tools for patient consent. , 2013, JAMA.

[3]  K. Shojania,et al.  Informed consent documents do not encourage good-quality decision making. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  George Hripcsak,et al.  Next-generation phenotyping of electronic health records , 2012, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[5]  Erika Check Hayden,et al.  Informed consent: A broken contract , 2012, Nature.

[6]  L. Edwards,et al.  Factors associated with decisions to undergo surgery among patients with newly diagnosed early-stage lung cancer. , 2010, JAMA.

[7]  L. Wilder,et al.  Subjects Agree to Participate in Environmental Health Studies without Fully Comprehending the Associated Risk , 2011, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[8]  J. Brady,et al.  The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. , 2014, The Journal of the American College of Dentists.

[9]  Manolis Tsiknakis,et al.  Flexible Access to Patient Data through e-Consent , 2015 .

[10]  Michael Morrison,et al.  Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks , 2014, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[11]  Matthew Mohebbi,et al.  Assessing Google Flu Trends Performance in the United States during the 2009 Influenza Virus A (H1N1) Pandemic , 2011, PloS one.

[12]  Madeline B. Deutsch,et al.  Electronic medical records and the transgender patient: recommendations from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health EMR Working Group , 2013, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[13]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Misunderstandings about the effects of race and sex on physicians' referrals for cardiac catheterization. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  L. Ghandour,et al.  Giving Consent without Getting Informed: A Cross-Cultural Issue in Research Ethics , 2013, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[15]  Wei Luo,et al.  Risk stratification using data from electronic medical records better predicts suicide risks than clinician assessments , 2014, BMC Psychiatry.

[16]  Jeanne Erdmann,et al.  As personal genomes join big data will privacy and access shrink? , 2013, Chemistry & biology.

[17]  Michael Morrison,et al.  Towards ‘Engagement 2.0’: Insights from a study of dynamic consent with biobank participants , 2015, Digital health.

[18]  David Lund,et al.  Dynamic Consent: A Possible Solution to Improve Patient Confidence and Trust in How Electronic Patient Records Are Used in Medical Research , 2015, JMIR medical informatics.

[19]  L. Tamariz,et al.  Improving the Informed Consent Process for Research Subjects with Low Literacy: A Systematic Review , 2012, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[20]  M. Ryn,et al.  Research on the provider contribution to race/ethnicity disparities in medical care. , 2002 .

[21]  M. van Ryn,et al.  The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on physicians' perceptions of patients. , 2000, Social science & medicine.

[22]  Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar,et al.  A review of data mining using big data in health informatics , 2013, Journal Of Big Data.

[23]  Gregory N. Connolly,et al.  Concern about security and privacy, and perceived control over collection and use of health information are related to withholding of health information from healthcare providers , 2014, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[24]  Giovanni Russello,et al.  Flexible and Dynamic Consent-Capturing , 2011, iNetSeC.

[25]  Adrienne Y. Stith,et al.  Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. , 2003 .

[26]  A. Zwitter Big Data ethics , 2014, Big Data Soc..

[27]  Declan Butler,et al.  When Google got flu wrong , 2013, Nature.

[28]  B. Koenig Have we asked too much of consent? , 2014, The Hastings Center report.

[29]  T. Holt,et al.  Identification of undiagnosed diabetes and quality of diabetes care in the United States: cross-sectional study of 11.5 million primary care electronic records. , 2014, CMAJ open.

[30]  Nita A. Farahany,et al.  Redefining Genomic Privacy: Trust and Empowerment , 2014, bioRxiv.

[31]  Alanna Kulchak Rahm,et al.  Biobanking for research: a survey of patient population attitudes and understanding , 2013, Journal of Community Genetics.

[32]  Janet Currie,et al.  “Big Data” Versus “Big Brother”: On the Appropriate Use of Large-scale Data Collections in Pediatrics , 2013, Pediatrics.

[33]  L. Edwards,et al.  Patient Characteristics Associated With Favorable Perceptions of Patient–Provider Communication in Early-Stage Lung Cancer Treatment , 2014, Journal of health communication.

[34]  S. B. King,et al.  Testing an Online, Dynamic Consent Portal for Large Population Biobank Research , 2014, Public Health Genomics.

[35]  E. Cassell,et al.  The principles of the Belmont report revisited. How have respect for persons, beneficence, and justice been applied to clinical medicine? , 2000, The Hastings Center report.

[36]  D. Lazer,et al.  The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis , 2014, Science.

[37]  Lance S. Rintamaki,et al.  Transgender Patient Perceptions of Stigma in Health Care Contexts , 2013, Medical care.

[38]  T. H. Allegri The Code of Federal Regulations , 1986 .

[39]  George Packer The Broken Contract , 2011 .

[40]  W. Chung,et al.  Should life insurers have access to genetic test results? , 2014, JAMA.