Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35596210›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2022

Patient consent preferences on sharing personal health information during the COVID-19 pandemic: "the more informed we are, the more likely we are to help".

Sarah Tosoni, Indu Voruganti, Katherine Lajkosz, Shahbano Mustafa, Anne Phillips, S Joseph Kim, Rebecca K S Wong, Donald Willison, Carl Virtanen, Ann Heesters and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sarah TosoniRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 700 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada.
Indu VorugantiRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 700 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada.
Katherine LajkoszDepartment of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Shahbano MustafaRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 700 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada.
Anne PhillipsNovo Nordisk, Plainsboro, USA.
S Joseph KimDepartment of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Rebecca K S WongRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 700 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada.
Donald WillisonInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Carl VirtanenUniversity Health Network Digital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ann HeestersDepartment of Bioethics, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Fei-Fei LiuRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 700 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada. Fei-Fei.Liu@rmp.uhn.on.ca.
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity Health Network · CANovo Nordisk (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid ethical access to personal health information (PHI) to support research is extremely important during pandemics, yet little is known regarding patient preferences for consent during such crises. This follow-up study sought to ascertain whether there were differences in consent preferences between pre-pandemic times compared to during Wave 1 of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and to better understand the reasons behind these preferences.

methodsA total of 183 patients in the pandemic cohort completed the survey via email, and responses were compared to the distinct pre-pandemic cohort (n = 222); all were patients of a large Canadian cancer center. The survey covered (a) broad versus study-specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out contact approach; (c) levels of comfort sharing with different recipients; (d) perceptions of commercialization; and (e) options to track use of information and be notified of results. Four focus groups (n = 12) were subsequently conducted to elucidate reasons motivating dominant preferences.

resultsPatients in the pandemic cohort were significantly more comfortable with sharing all information and biological samples (90% vs. 79%, p = 0.009), sharing information with the health care institution (97% vs. 83%, p < 0.001), sharing information with researchers at other hospitals (85% vs. 70%, p < 0.001), sharing PHI provincially (69% vs. 53%, p < 0.002), nationally (65% vs. 53%, p = 0.022) and internationally (48% vs. 39%, p = 0.024) compared to the pre-pandemic cohort. Discomfort with sharing information with commercial companies remained unchanged between the two cohorts (50% vs. 51% uncomfortable, p = 0.58). Significantly more pandemic cohort patients expressed a wish to track use of PHI (75% vs. 61%, p = 0.007), and to be notified of results (83% vs. 70%, p = 0.012). Thematic analysis uncovered that transparency was strongly desired on outside PHI use, particularly when commercialization was involved.

conclusionsIn pandemic times, patients were more comfortable sharing information with all parties, except with commercial entities, where levels of discomfort (~ 50%) remained unchanged. Focus groups identified that the ability to track and receive results of studies using one's PHI is an important way to reduce discomfort and increase trust. These findings meaningfully inform wider discussions on the use of personal health information for research during global crises.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health Records, PersonalCanadaFollow-Up StudiesHumansInformed ConsentPandemicsPatient PreferenceConsent during pandemicsCOVID-19Data sharing during pandemicsPatient consent preferencesResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID35596210
PMCPMC9122733
OpenAlexW4280488792

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.