Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32197602›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2020

Clarifying how to deploy the public interest criterion in consent waivers for health data and tissue research.

G Owen Schaefer, Graeme Laurie, Sumytra Menon, Alastair V Campbell, Teck Chuan Voo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

G Owen SchaeferCentre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Block MD11, Clinical Research Centre, #02-03, 10 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117597, Singapore.
Graeme LaurieSchool of Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, UK.
Sumytra MenonCentre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Block MD11, Clinical Research Centre, #02-03, 10 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117597, Singapore.
Alastair V CampbellCentre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Block MD11, Clinical Research Centre, #02-03, 10 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117597, Singapore.
Teck Chuan VooCentre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Block MD11, Clinical Research Centre, #02-03, 10 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117597, Singapore. medvtc@nus.edu.sg.

Funding

National University of Singapore R-171-000-060-133Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust (GB) WT103360MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral jurisdictions, including Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and most recently Ireland, have a public interest or public good criterion for granting waivers of consent in biomedical research using secondary health data or tissue. However, the concept of the public interest is not well defined in this context, which creates difficulties for institutions, institutional review boards (IRBs) and regulators trying to implement the criterion. MAIN TEXT: This paper clarifies how the public interest criterion can be defensibly deployed. We first explain the ethical basis for requiring waivers to only be granted to studies meeting the public interest criterion, then explore how further criteria may be set to determine the extent to which a given study can legitimately claim to be in the public interest. We propose an approach that does not attempt to measure magnitude of benefit directly, but rather takes into account metrics that are more straightforward to apply. To ensure consistent and justifiable interpretation, research institutions and IRBs should also incorporate procedural features such as transparency and public engagement in determining which studies satisfy the public interest requirement.

conclusionThe requirement of public interest for consent waivers in secondary biomedical research should be guided by well-defined criteria for systematic evaluation. Such a criteria and its application need to be periodically subject to intra-committee and intra-institution review, reflection, deliberation and amendment.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchInformed ConsentAustraliaData AnalysisHumansNew ZealandSingaporeConsent waiversEthics reviewPublic goodPublic interestResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID32197602
PMCPMC7083029

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.