ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2016
Facilitating the ethical use of health data for the benefit of society: electronic health records, consent and the duty of easy rescue.
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06644599 (Integrated Proactive Wireless Monitoring for Clinical Deterioration), which is not on this map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Integrated Proactive Wireless Monitoring for Clinical Deterioration: A Stepped Wedge Randomized Trial
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Specific measures for data-intensive health research without consent: a systematic review of soft law instruments and academic literature.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Pooled it
- Ethical Principles, Constraints and Opportunities in Clinical Proteomics.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2021Pooled it
- Collaborative and Cooperative Hospital "In-House" Medical Device Development and Implementation in the AI Age: The European Responsible AI Development (EURAID) Framework Compatible With European Values.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Health-Related Stigma: The Affordances of Electronic Health Management Systems in the Production of Structural Stigma.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Article
- Enabling Demonstrated Consent for Biobanking with Blockchain and Generative AI.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- High-reward, high-risk technologies? An ethical and legal account of AI development in healthcare.BMC medical ethics · 2025Review
- Development and implementation of an electronic health record system for use in humanitarian emergencies, disaster response, and conflict zones.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Waiving the consent requirement to mitigate bias in observational precision medicine research.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Seamless EMR data access: Integrated governance, digital health and the OMOP-CDM.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Review
- Identifying facilitators of and barriers to the adoption of dynamic consent in digital health ecosystems: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Pragmatic solutions to reduce the global burden of stroke: a World Stroke Organization-Lancet Neurology Commission.The Lancet. Neurology · 2023Review
- FAIR, ethical, and coordinated data sharing for COVID-19 response: a scoping review and cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 data sharing platforms and registries.The Lancet. Digital health · 2023Article
- Data-driven sudden cardiac arrest research in Europe: Experts' perspectives on ethical challenges and governance strategies.Resuscitation plus · 2023Review
- The European health data space: Too big to succeed?Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023Article
- COVID-19 Conceptual Modeling: Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Towards trust-based governance of health data research.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023Article
- Patient and researcher stakeholder preferences for use of electronic health record data: a qualitative study to guide the design and development of a platform to honor patient preferences.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Exploring patient perspectives on the secondary use of their personal health information: an interview study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Is there a civic duty to support medical AI development by sharing electronic health records?BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Ethics challenges in sharing data from pragmatic clinical trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
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
Abstract
Advances in data science allow for sophisticated analysis of increasingly large datasets. In the medical context, large volumes of data collected for healthcare purposes are contained in electronic health records (EHRs). The real-life character and sheer amount of data contained in them make EHRs an attractive resource for public health and biomedical research. However, medical records contain sensitive information that could be misused by third parties. Medical confidentiality and respect for patients' privacy and autonomy protect patient data, barring access to health records unless consent is given by the data subject. This creates a situation in which much of the beneficial records-based research is prevented from being used or is seriously undermined, because the refusal of consent by some patients introduces a systematic deviation, known as selection bias, from a representative sample of the general population, thus distorting research findings. Although research exemptions for the requirement of informed consent exist, they are rarely used in practice due to concerns over liability and a general culture of caution. In this paper, we argue that the problem of research access to sensitive data can be understood as a tension between the medical duties of confidentiality and beneficence. We attempt to show that the requirement of informed consent is not appropriate for all kinds of records-based research by distinguishing studies involving minimal risk from those that feature moderate or greater risks. We argue that the duty of easy rescue-the principle that persons should benefit others when this can be done at no or minimal risk to themselves-grounds the removal of consent requirements for minimally risky records-based research. Drawing on this discussion, we propose a risk-adapted framework for the facilitation of ethical uses of health data for the benefit of society.This article is part of the themed issue 'The ethical impact of data science'.
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.