Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33095694›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2021

Governance of a Learning Health Care System for Oncology: Patient Recommendations.

Rochelle D Jones, Chris Krenz, Kent A Griffith, Rebecca Spence, Angela R Bradbury, Raymond De Vries, Sarah T Hawley, Robin Zon, Sage Bolte, Navid Sadeghi and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Rochelle D JonesUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Chris KrenzUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.ORCID 0000-0002-0514-4586
Kent A GriffithUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.ORCID 0000-0003-2598-4328
Rebecca SpenceAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.
Angela R BradburyUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.ORCID 0000-0001-9607-6402
Raymond De VriesUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.ORCID 0000-0003-3087-3040
Sarah T HawleyUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Robin ZonMichiana Hematology-Oncology, Mishawaka, IN.ORCID 0000-0002-9884-8688
Sage BolteInova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, VA.ORCID 0000-0002-7095-6126
Navid SadeghiUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.ORCID 0000-0002-7786-8786
Richard L SchilskyAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.ORCID 0000-0003-4474-4303
Reshma JagsiUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.ORCID 0000-0001-6562-1228
University of Michigan · 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 learning health care system (LHS) was designed to enable real-time learning and research by harnessing data generated during patients' clinical encounters. This novel approach begets ethical questions regarding the oversight of users and uses of patient data. Understanding patients' perspectives is vitally important. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted democratic deliberation sessions focused on CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS. Experts presented educational content, and then small group discussions were held to elicit viewpoints. The deliberations centered around whether policies should permit or deny certain users and uses of secondary data. De-identified transcripts of the discussions were examined by using thematic analysis.

resultsAnalysis identified two thematic clusters: expectations and concerns, which seemed to inform LHS governance recommendations. Participants expected to benefit from the LHS through the advancement of medical knowledge, which they hoped would improve treatments and the quality of their care. They were concerned that profit-driven users might manipulate the data in ways that could burden or exploit patients, hinder medical decisions, or compromise patient-provider communication. It was recommended that restricted access, user fees, and penalties should be imposed to prevent users, especially for-profit entities, from misusing data. Another suggestion was that patients should be notified of potential ethical issues and included on diverse, unbiased governing boards.

conclusionIf patients are to trust and support LHS endeavors, their concerns about for-profit users must be addressed. The ethical implementation of such systems should consist of patient representation on governing boards, transparency, and strict oversight of for-profit users.

Indexed as

Learning Health SystemHumansMedical OncologyMoralsTrust

Identifiers

PMID33095694
PMCPMC8257992
OpenAlexW3093885379

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.