Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32436848›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Related to the Inclusion of Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities in Electronic Health Record Research: Scoping Review.

Melissa Raspa, Rebecca Moultrie, Laura Wagner, Anne Edwards, Sara Andrews, Mary Katherine Frisch, Lauren Turner-Brown, Anne Wheeler

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Preferences for Accessing Electronic Health Records for Research Purposes: Views of Parents Who Have a Child With a Known or Suspected Genetic Condition.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2020
    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

8 authors.

Melissa RaspaRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3791-3367
Rebecca MoultrieRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2102-2287
Laura WagnerRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1041-2573
Anne EdwardsRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6014-1655
Sara AndrewsRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0218-0976
Mary Katherine FrischThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, TEACCH Autism Program, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1592-9763
Lauren Turner-BrownThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, TEACCH Autism Program, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5180-1818
Anne WheelerRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2693-5616

Funding

Assessing Preferences for Use of Clinical Data Among Individuals with IDD and Their GuardiansR01HD086702 · NICHD · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI RASPA, MELISSA · 2015 to 2017
$2.1M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD086702
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData from electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly used in the field of genetic research to further precision medicine initiatives. However, many of these efforts exclude individuals with intellectual disabilities, which often stem from genetic conditions. To include this important subpopulation in EHR research, important ethical, legal, and social issues should be considered.

objectiveThe goal of this study was to review prior research to better understand what ethical, legal, and social issues may need further investigation when considering the research use of EHRs for individuals with genetic conditions that may result in intellectual disability. This information will be valuable in developing methods and best practices for involving this group in research given they are considered a vulnerable population that may need special research protections.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review to examine issues related to the use of EHRs for research purposes and those more broadly associated with genetic research. The initial search yielded a total of 460 unique citations. We used an evaluative coding process to determine relevancy for inclusion.

resultsThis approach resulted in 59 articles in the following areas: informed consent, privacy and security, return of results, and vulnerable populations. The review included several models of garnering informed consent in EHR or genetic research, including tiered or categorical, blanket or general, open, and opt-out models. Second, studies reported on patients' concerns regarding the privacy and security of EHR or genetic data, such as who has access, type of data use in research, identifiability, and risks associated with privacy breach. The literature on return of research results using biospecimens examined the dissension in the field, particularly when sharing individualized genetic results. Finally, work involving vulnerable populations highlighted special considerations when conducting EHR or genetic research.

conclusionsThe results frame important questions for researchers to consider when designing EHR studies, which include individuals with intellectual disabilities, including appropriate safeguards and protections.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsEthical AnalysisHumansIntellectual Disabilityelectronic health recordsgeneticsinformed consentintellectual disabilityprivacy

Identifiers

PMID32436848
PMCPMC7273235

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.