Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23734773›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2013

"Let's get the best quality research we can": public awareness and acceptance of consent to use existing data in health research: a systematic review and qualitative study.

Elizabeth M Hill, Emma L Turner, Richard M Martin, Jenny L Donovan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

91 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Beyond the dataset: integrating public voices in data science.Research involvement and engagement · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. U.S. Vietnamese Parents' Perceptions of Different Approaches for Confirming Adolescent HPV Vaccination Records in Research Studies.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elizabeth M HillSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, UK. liz.hill@bristol.ac.uk
Emma L Turner
Richard M Martin
Jenny L Donovan

Funding

Cancer Research UK C11043/A4286Cancer Research UK C18281/A11326Cancer Research UK C18281/A15064Cancer Research UK C18281/A8145Department of HealthMedical Research Council G0900871
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpt-in consent is usually required for research, but is known to introduce selection bias. This is a particular problem for large scale epidemiological studies using only pre-collected health data. Most previous studies have shown that members of the public value opt-in consent and can perceive research without consent as an invasion of privacy. Past research has suggested that people are generally unaware of research processes and existing safeguards, and that education may increase the acceptability of research without prior informed consent, but this recommendation has not been formally evaluated. Our objectives were to determine the range of public opinion about the use of existing medical data for research and to explore views about consent to a secondary review of medical records for research. We also investigated the effect of the provision of detailed information about the potential effect of selection bias on public acceptability of the use of data for research.

methodsWe carried out a systematic review of existing literature on public attitudes to secondary use of existing health records identified by searching PubMed (1966-present), Embase (1974-present) and reference lists of identified studies to provide a general overview, followed by a qualitative focus group study with 19 older men recruited from rural and suburban primary care practices in the UK to explore key issues in detail.

resultsThe systematic review identified twenty-seven relevant papers and the findings suggested that males and older people were more likely to consent to a review of their medical data. Many studies noted participants' lack of knowledge about research processes and existing safeguards and this was reflected in the focus groups. Focus group participants became more accepting of the use of pre-collected medical data without consent after being given information about selection bias and research processes. All participants were keen to contribute to NHS-related research but some were concerned about data-sharing for commercial gain and the potential misuse of information.

conclusionsIncreasing public education about research and specific targeted information provision could promote trust in research processes and safeguards, which in turn could increase the acceptability of research without specific consent where the need for consent would lead to biased findings and impede research necessary to improve public health.

Indexed as

Health EducationMedical RecordsPatient Acceptance of Health CareAgedBiomedical ResearchFocus GroupsHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedPublic OpinionSelection BiasUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID23734773
PMCPMC3682867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.