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".
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Views on consent approaches used in emergency and critical care research: a rapid, systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of mobile health in symptom management of prostate cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Measuring the willingness to share personal health information: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Attitudes of Longitudinal Study Participants and Members of the Public Towards Data Sharing for Secondary Research: A Survey Based Approach.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- The Genetic Data Market: Institutional Governance of Academic/Industry Research Partnerships for the Public Good.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- Critical consideration towards broad consent by patient experts: results of a semi-structured interview study on the secondary use of medical data.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Worldwide willingness to share health data high but privacy, consent and transparency paramount, a meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- The Public Knowledge of Precision Medicine and Genomic Research: A Survey in the Aosta Valley.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Stakeholders' perceptions of personal health data sharing: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Health data sharing attitudes towards primary and secondary use of data: a systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Government Initiatives for Research Ethics During COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Attitude towards consent-free research use of personal medical data in the general German population.Heliyon · 2024Article
- The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in "Sped up Science": Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype and in the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- Public Preferences for Digital Health Data Sharing: Discrete Choice Experiment Study in 12 European Countries.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Exploring patient perspectives on the secondary use of their personal health information: an interview study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.