ArticleJournal of medical ethics2007
Legal and ethical considerations in processing patient-identifiable data without patient consent: lessons learnt from developing a disease register.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Suitability of the Current Health Technology Assessment of Innovative Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Devices: Scoping Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Public Attitudes Regarding Trade-offs Between the Functional Aspects of a Contact-Confirming App for COVID-19 Infection Control and the Benefits to Individuals and Public Health: Cross-sectional Survey.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Article
- Checking Questionable Entry of Personally Identifiable Information Encrypted by One-Way Hash Transformation.JMIR medical informatics · 2017Article
- Augmented and virtual reality in surgery-the digital surgical environment: applications, limitations and legal pitfalls.Annals of translational medicine · 2016Review
- Modern use of smartphone applications in the perioperative management in microsurgical breast reconstruction.Gland surgery · 2016Article
- Sharing with More Caring: Coordinating and Improving the Ethical Governance of Data and Biomaterials Obtained from Children.PloS one · 2015Article
- Conducting record review studies in clinical practice.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2014Article
- Validation and reliability of a smartphone application for the International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaire: a randomized repeated measures crossover study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2014Article
- Sorry, You Can't Have That Information: Data Holder Confusion Regarding Privacy Requirements for Personal Health Information and the Potential Chilling Effect on Health Research.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2009Article
- Health promotion services for lifestyle development within a UK hospital--Patients' experiences and views.BMC public health · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The legal requirements and justifications for collecting patient-identifiable data without patient consent were examined. The impetus for this arose from legal and ethical issues raised during the development of a population-based disease register. Numerous commentaries and case studies have been discussing the impact of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA1998) and Caldicott principles of good practice on the uses of personal data. But uncertainty still remains about the legal requirements for processing patient-identifiable data without patient consent for research purposes. This is largely owing to ignorance, or misunderstandings of the implications of the common law duty of confidentiality and section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. The common law duty of confidentiality states that patient-identifiable data should not be provided to third parties, regardless of compliance with the DPA1998. It is an obligation derived from case law, and is open to interpretation. Compliance with section 60 ensures that collection of patient-identifiable data without patient consent is lawful despite the duty of confidentiality. Fears regarding the duty of confidentiality have resulted in a common misconception that section 60 must be complied with. Although this is not the case, section 60 support does provide the most secure basis in law for collecting such data. Using our own experience in developing a disease register as a backdrop, this article will clarify the procedures, risks and potential costs of applying for section 60 support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.