ArticleSystematic reviews2021
A systematic literature review of attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: a focus on consent.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Men's perceptions of long-term health outcomes following fertility problems: a UK-based mixed-methods survey.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- A Review of Medical Data Sharing Initiatives With a Focus on the Use of Blockchain Technologies: Qualitative Comparative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Review
- Perspectives of young people on the use of neonatal data in the UK national neonatal research database: a patient and public involvement project.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Challenges and Current Approaches.Research in heart yield and translational medicine · 2026Review
- Developing a Data Trust Model (Not Only) for Sleep Research: Conceptual Study and Quantitative Survey.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Worldwide willingness to share health data high but privacy, consent and transparency paramount, a meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Measures of the Availability and Accessibility of Behavioral Health Services: A Scoping Review.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Article
- If it wasn't for us, there would be no data: stakeholders' perspectives on patient involvement in the use of health data in Ireland.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Article
- Researchers' perceptions of the trustworthiness, for reuse purposes, of government health data in Victoria, Australia: Implications for policy and practice.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2025Article
- I don't mind my information going to the Moon, but I don't want any letters from Mars: a qualitative exploration of the challenges with secondary use of health data in Ireland.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- An assessment of synthetic data generation, use and disclosure under Canadian privacy regulations.AI and ethics · 2025Article
- Health disparities and selection bias in obtaining broad consent in a general practitioner setting.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Reusing routine electronic health record data for nationwide COVID-19 surveillance in nursing homes: barriers, facilitators, and lessons learned.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Attitudes on data reuse among internal medicine residents.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Attitude towards consent-free research use of personal medical data in the general German population.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Community views on the secondary use of general practice data: Findings from a mixed-methods study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- The knowledge and reuse practices of researchers utilising government health information assets, Victoria, Australia, 2008-2020.PloS one · 2024Article
- Patient Perspectives and Preferences for Consent in the Digital Health Context: State-of-the-art Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to synthesise data on issues related to stakeholder perceptions of consent for the use of secondary data. To better understand the current literature available, we conducted a systematic literature review of healthcare consumer attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data.
methodsEMBASE/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Informit Health Collection, PROSPERO Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO and ProQuest databases were searched. Eligible articles included those reporting qualitative or quantitative original research and published in English. No restrictions were placed on publication dates, study design or disease setting. One author screened articles for eligibility and two authors were involved in the full-text review process. Conflicts were resolved by consensus. Quality and bias were assessed using the QualSyst criteria for qualitative studies.
resultsThis paper focuses on a subset of 47 articles identified from the wider search and focuses on the issue of consent. Issues related to privacy, trust and transparency, and attitudes of healthcare professionals and researchers to secondary use and sharing of data have been dealt with in previous publications. Studies included a total of 216,149 respondents. Results indicate that respondents are generally supportive of using health data for research, particularly if the data is de-identified or anonymised. The requirement by participants to obtain consent prior to the use of health data for research was not universal, nor is the requirement for this always supported by legislation. Many respondents believed that either no consent or being informed of the research, but not providing additional consent, were sufficient.
conclusionsThese results indicate that individuals should be provided with information and choice about how their health data is used and, where feasible, a mechanism to opt-out should be provided. To increase the acceptability of using health data for research, health organisations and data custodians must provide individuals with concise information about data protection mechanisms and under what circumstances their data may be used and by whom. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018110559 (update June 2020).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.