Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32352881›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2020

Patient Preferences Regarding Informed Consent Models for Participation in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology.

Rochelle D Jones, Chris Krenz, Michele Gornick, Kent A Griffith, Rebecca Spence, Angela R Bradbury, Raymond De Vries, Sarah T Hawley, Rodney A Hayward, Robin Zon and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Rochelle D JonesUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Chris KrenzUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Michele GornickUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Kent A GriffithUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Rebecca SpenceAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.
Angela R BradburyUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Raymond De VriesUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Sarah T HawleyUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Rodney A HaywardUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Robin ZonMichiana Hematology-Oncology, PC, Mishawaka, IN.
Sage BolteInova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, VA.
Navid SadeghiUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
Richard L SchilskyAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.
Reshma JagsiUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USVirginia Cancer Institute · US

Funding

Patient Perspectives on the Ethical Implementation of an Oncology Learning SystemR01CA201356 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI JAGSI, RESHMA · 2016 to 2020
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA201356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe expansion of learning health care systems (LHSs) promises to bolster research and quality improvement endeavors. Stewards of patient data have a duty to respect the preferences of the patients from whom, and for whom, these data are being collected and consolidated.

methodsWe conducted democratic deliberations with a diverse sample of 217 patients treated at 4 sites to assess views about LHSs, using the example of CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS, to stimulate discussion. In small group discussions, participants deliberated about different policies for how to provide information and to seek consent regarding the inclusion of patient data. These discussions were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified for thematic analysis.

resultsOf participants, 67% were female, 61% were non-Hispanic Whites, and the mean age was 60 years. Patients' opinions about sharing their data illuminated 2 spectra: trust/distrust and individualism/collectivism. Positions on these spectra influenced the weight placed on 3 priorities: promoting societal altruism, ensuring respect for persons, and protecting themselves. In turn, consideration of these priorities seemed to inform preferences regarding patient choices and system transparency. Most advocated for a policy whereby patients would receive notification and have the opportunity to opt out of including their medical records in the LHS. Participants reasoned that such a policy would balance personal protections and societal welfare.

conclusionSystem transparency and patient choice are vital if patients are to feel respected and to trust LHS endeavors. Those responsible for LHS implementation should ensure that all patients receive an explanation of their options, together with standardized, understandable, comprehensive materials.

Indexed as

Learning Health SystemPatient PreferenceFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMedical OncologyMiddle AgedTrust

Identifiers

PMID32352881
PMCPMC7846056
OpenAlexW3023577557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.