Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28336803›Full record

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.

Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Julian Savulescu, Barbara J Sahakian

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT06644599 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Integrated Proactive Wireless Monitoring for Clinical Deterioration: A Stepped Wedge Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorKing Abdullah International Medical Research CenterRan2026 to 2026Enrolled13,160ConditionsInpatient Facililty DiagnosesArmswireless monitoring
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. The European health data space: Too big to succeed?Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Towards trust-based governance of health data research.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Sebastian Porsdam MannDepartment of Psychiatry, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Julian SavulescuOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Suite 8, Littlegate House, St Ebbes Street, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK jsavulescu@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1691-6403
Barbara J SahakianDepartment of Psychiatry, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 104848Wellcome Trust 104848/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchConfidentialityElectronic Health RecordsInformed ConsentSocial ResponsibilityTrustduty of easy rescueelectronic health recordsinformed consentprivacyresearch ethicsselection bias

Identifiers

PMID28336803
PMCPMC5124071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.