Public attitudes towards the use of primary care patient record data in medical research without consent: a qualitative study

Objectives: Recent legislative changes within the United Kingdom have stimulated professional debate about access to patient data within research. However, there is currently little awareness of public views about such research. The authors sought to explore attitudes of the public, and their lay representatives, towards the use of primary care medical record data for research when patient consent was not being sought. Methods: 49 members of the public and four non-medical members of local community health councils in South Wales, UK gave their views on the value and acceptability of three current research scenarios, each describing access to data without patient consent. Results: Among focus group participants, awareness of research in primary care was low, and the appropriateness of general practitioners as researchers was questioned. There was general support for research but also concerns expressed about data collection without consent. These included lack of respect and patient control over the process. Unauthorised access to data by external agencies was a common fear. Current data collection practices, including population based disease registers elicited much anxiety. The key informants were equally critical of the scenarios and generally less accepting. Conclusions: This exploratory study has highlighted a number of areas of public concern when medical records are accessed for research without patient consent. Public acceptability regarding the use of medical records in research cannot simply be assumed. Further work is required to determine how widespread such views are and to inform those advising on confidentiality issues.

[1]  P. Lachmann Consent and confidentiality—where are the limits? An introduction , 2003, Journal of medical ethics.

[2]  L Turnberg Common sense and common consent in communicable disease surveillance , 2003, Journal of medical ethics.

[3]  O. O’neill,et al.  Some limits of informed consent , 2003, Journal of medical ethics.

[4]  C. Chantler,et al.  Confidentiality and the duties of care , 2003, Journal of medical ethics.

[5]  Sue Eckstein,et al.  Personal information in medical research , 2003 .

[6]  S Holm,et al.  Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th edn. , 2002 .

[7]  Angus Nicoll,et al.  Consent, confidentiality, and the threat to public health surveillance. , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Marc Taylor,et al.  Research governance framework for health and social care. , 2002, Health & social care in the community.

[9]  F. Cheater,et al.  The Data Protection Act (1998): implications for health researchers. , 2001, Journal of advanced nursing.

[10]  D. Parkin,et al.  Informed consent in cancer registries , 2001, The Lancet.

[11]  W. Graham,et al.  The importance of conducting and reporting pilot studies: the example of the Scottish Births Survey. , 2001, Journal of advanced nursing.

[12]  R. Pill,et al.  Lay attitudes to professional consultations for common mental disorder: a sociological perspective. , 2001, British medical bulletin.

[13]  C Warlow,et al.  Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  T. Walley,et al.  Data protection legislation: interpretation and barriers to research , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  M Stone,et al.  What proportion of patients refuse consent to data collection from their records for research purposes? , 2000, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[16]  T. Richards Court sanctions use of anonymised patient data , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  R. Woodman Storage of human organs prompts three inquiries , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  Patients' knowledge and expectations of confidentiality in primary health care: a quantitative study. , 2000, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[19]  C. Dyer BMA's patient confidentiality rules are deemed unlawful , 1999, BMJ.

[20]  M. Warnock Informed consent -- a publisher's duty. , 1998, BMJ.

[21]  M. Warnock,et al.  Informed consent in medical research. , 1998, BMJ.

[22]  Richard A. Krueger,et al.  Analyzing and Reporting Focus Group Results , 1997 .

[23]  S. Mclean Commentary: No consent means not treating the patient with respect , 1997 .

[24]  L. Doyal Informed consent in medical research: Journals should not publish research to which patients have not given fully informed consent–with three exceptions , 1997 .

[25]  N Britten,et al.  Confidentiality of medical records: the patient's perspective. , 1995, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[26]  J. Kitzinger,et al.  Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups , 1995 .

[27]  M. Law,et al.  Use of personal medical records for research purposes , 1994, BMJ.

[28]  A. Capron,et al.  Protection of Research Subjects: Do Special Rules Apply in Epidemiology? , 1991, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[29]  Simon Moulton,et al.  The data protection act , 1989 .

[30]  Mike Watts,et al.  More than the Sum of the Parts: research methods in group interviewing , 1987 .