Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33538942›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2021

Ethical Issues in Consent for the Reuse of Data in Health Data Platforms.

Alex McKeown, Miranda Mourby, Paul Harrison, Sophie Walker, Mark Sheehan, Ilina Singh

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The reuse of genetic information in research and informed consent.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021
    Review
  10. The Challenges of Big Data for Research Ethics Committees: A Qualitative Swiss Study.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alex McKeownDepartment of Psychiatry, Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, Warneford Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7JX, UK. alexander.mckeown@psych.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2582-6493
Miranda MourbyCentre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Paul HarrisonDepartment of Psyhiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sophie WalkerDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mark SheehanEthox, Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ilina SinghDepartment of Psychiatry, Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBWarneford Hospital · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17215Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 104825/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 203132/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data platforms represent a new paradigm for carrying out health research. In the platform model, datasets are pooled for remote access and analysis, so novel insights for developing better stratified and/or personalised medicine approaches can be derived from their integration. If the integration of diverse datasets enables development of more accurate risk indicators, prognostic factors, or better treatments and interventions, this obviates the need for the sharing and reuse of data; and a platform-based approach is an appropriate model for facilitating this. Platform-based approaches thus require new thinking about consent. Here we defend an approach to meeting this challenge within the data platform model, grounded in: the notion of 'reasonable expectations' for the reuse of data; Waldron's account of 'integrity' as a heuristic for managing disagreement about the ethical permissibility of the approach; and the element of the social contract that emphasises the importance of public engagement in embedding new norms of research consistent with changing technological realities. While a social contract approach may sound appealing, however, it is incoherent in the context at hand. We defend a way forward guided by that part of the social contract which requires public approval for the proposal and argue that we have moral reasons to endorse a wider presumption of data reuse. However, we show that the relationship in question is not recognisably contractual and that the social contract approach is therefore misleading in this context. We conclude stating four requirements on which the legitimacy of our proposal rests.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentMoralsContractsHumansBig dataConsentEthicsHealth data platformsMachine learningSocial contract

Identifiers

PMID33538942
PMCPMC7862505
OpenAlexW3117353297

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.