Résumés
Résumé
La notion de transparence ressort régulièrement des discussions autour des utilisations secondaires des données de santé. Peu d’études se penchent toutefois sur les impacts de la présence ou de l’absence de transparence ou de son absence sur les membres du public. Cette revue de littérature répond à cette lacune. Elle résulte d’une analyse secondaire de 124 textes issus d’une recension de la portée sur la transparence conformément aux lignes directrices PRISMAS-ScR. Les résultats contribuent à identifier les impacts négatifs ou positifs et à les associer à certaines composantes communicationnelles relatives aux utilisations secondaires de données de santé. Ils permettent également d’identifier les composantes associées à une communication jugée transparente ou opaque par les parties prenantes. La transparence, et plus particulièrement la continuité de la communication, est fortement associée à une augmentation de la confiance et de l’acceptabilité sociale alors qu’en général, les membres du public perçoivent négativement un manque de transparence. Cette revue de littérature approfondit également les connaissances sur les risques d’impacts négatifs de la communication transparente.
Mots-clés :
- impacts,
- transparence,
- données de santé,
- utilisations secondaires,
- systèmes de santé apprenants
Abstract
The notion of transparency regularly comes up in discussions about the secondary uses of health data. Few studies, however, examine the impact of the presence or absence of transparency on members of the public. This literature review responds to this gap in the scientific literature. It is the result of a secondary analysis of 124 texts from an exploratory review on transparency, following the PRISMAS-ScR guidelines. The results help to identify negative or positive impacts and associate these with certain communication components relating to secondary uses of health data. They also make it possible to identify the components associated with communication deemed transparent or opaque by stakeholders. Transparency, and more specifically continuity of communication, is strongly associated with increased trust and social acceptability, whereas members of the public generally perceive a lack of transparency negatively. This literature review also deepens our understanding of the potential negative impacts of transparent communication.
Keywords:
- impacts,
- transparency,
- health data,
- secondary uses,
- learning health systems
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- 1. Cucciniello M, Porumbescu GA, Grimmelikhuijsen S. 25 years of transparency research: evidence and future directions. Public Adm Rev. 2017;77(1):32‑44.
- 2. Erkkilä T. Government Transparency. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2012.
- 3. Hood C, Heald D, éditeurs. Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?. 1re éd. Oxford: British Academy; 2006.
- 4. Fenster M. Transparency in search of a theory. Eur J Soc Theory. 2015;18(2):150‑67.
- 5. Grimmelikhuijsen S, Porumbescu G, Hong B, Im T. The effect of transparency on trust in government: a cross-national comparative experiment. Public Adm Rev. 2013;73(4):575‑86.
- 6. Meijer A, ‘t Hart P, Worthy B. Assessing government transparency: an interpretive framework. Adm Soc. 2018;50(4):501‑26.
- 7. Roelofs P. Transparency and mistrust: Who or what should be made transparent? Governance. 2019;32(3):565‑80.
- 8. Sampson CJ, Arnold R, Bryan S, et al. Transparency in decision modelling: what, why, who and how? PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37(11):1355‑69.
- 9. Fung A, Graham M, Weil D. Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency. 1re éd. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
- 10. Bauhr M, Grimes M. Indignation or resignation: the implications of transparency for societal accountability. Governance. 2014;27(2):291‑320.
- 11. Ball C. What Is transparency? Public Integr. 2009;11(4):293‑308.
- 12. Etzioni A. Is transparency the best disinfectant? SSRN; 2016.
- 13. De Fine Licht J, Naurin D. Chapter 18: Transparency. In: Handbook on Theories of Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2016. p. 217‑24.
- 14. Statistique Canada. La transparence et la responsabilisation.
- 15. Ministère de la Santé et de la Prévention. Accueil — Transparence Santé.
- 16. Gouvernement du Canada. Transparence de Santé Canada. 2016.
- 17. Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. Vers une gestion plus simple et transparente des données de santé - Les citoyens sont invités à se prononcer sur la gestion des renseignements de santé et de services sociaux. Salle de presse; 12 juillet 2021.
- 18. Heald D. Varieties of transparency. In: Hood C, Heald D, éditeurs. Transparency: The Key to Better Governance? Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006. p. 24-43.
- 19. Florini A, éditeur. The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World. Columbia University Press; 2007.
- 20. Mitchell RB. Transparency for governance: The mechanisms and effectiveness of disclosure-based and education-based transparency policies. Ecol Econ. 2011;70(11):1882‑90.
- 21. De Marcellis-Warin N, Mondin C. Baromètre Santé CIRANO – OBVIA Un outil pour comprendre les déterminants de l’acceptabilité sociale du partage des données et l’utilisation de l’IA en santé. CIRANO-OBVIA. 18 novembre 2022.
- 22. Cumyn A, Ménard JF, Barton A, Dault R, Lévesque F, Ethier JF. Patients’ and members of the public’s wishes regarding transparency in the context of secondary use of health data: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e45002.
- 23. Paprica PA, de Melo MN, Schull MJ. Social licence and the general public’s attitudes toward research based on linked administrative health data: a qualitative study. CMAJ Open. 2019;7(1):E40‑6.
- 24. Paprica PA, Sutherland E, Smith A, et al. Essential requirements for establishing and operating data trusts: practical guidance based on a working meeting of fifteen Canadian organizations and initiatives. Int J Popul Data Sci. 2020;5(1).
- 25. Caron DJ, Bernardi S, Beauchamp D. Le partage des renseignements de santé dans un contexte de gouvernance informationnelle responsable. Chaire de recherche en exploitation des ressources informationnelles, ENAP; 2021.
- 26. Caron DJ, Montmarquette C, Prud’homme A, Bernardi S, Nicolini V. Projet sur l’acceptabilité sociale du partage des renseignements de santé : enquête sur l’acceptabilité sociale du partage des renseignements de santé : constatations, résultats et variations : rapport final. Chaire de recherche en exploitation des ressources informationnelles, ENAP; 2020.
- 27. Fortin MJ, Fournis Y. Acceptabilité sociale, où en sommes-nous au Québec ? Actes du Forum sur l’acceptabilité sociale tenu le 20 mars 2015 à l’Université du Québec à Rimousk (Québec); 2015.
- 28. Batellier P. L’acceptabilité sociale – Cartographie d’une notion et de ses usages. Centre de recherche en éducation et formation relatives à l’environnement et à l’écocitoyenneté, UQAM; 2015.
- 29. Berger T, Mazer K, N’Dour A. Transparence en santé : Réflexions sur le ”concept” de transparence. Rev Générale Droit Méd. 2014;51:159‑68.
- 30. Spagnuelo D, Lenzini G. Transparent medical data systems. J Med Syst. 2016;41:8.
- 31. Turilli M, Floridi L. The ethics of information transparency. Ethics Inf Technol. 2009;11(2):105‑12.
- 32. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med.2018;169(7):467‑73.
- 33. Aitken M, Cunningham-Burley S, Pagliari C. Moving from trust to trustworthiness: Experiences of public engagement in the Scottish Health Informatics Programme. Sci Public Policy. 2016;43(5):713‑23.
- 34. Barazzetti G, Bosisio F, Koutaissoff D, Spencer B. Broad consent in practice: lessons learned from a hospital-based biobank for prospective research on genomic and medical data. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28(7):915‑24.
- 35. Caine K, Kohn S, Lawrence C, Hanania R, Meslin EM, Tierney WM. Designing a patient-centered user interface for access decisions about EHR data: implications from patient interviews. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(Suppl 1):7‑16.
- 36. Cumyn A, Barton A, Dault R, Safa N, Cloutier AM, Ethier JF. Meta-consent for the secondary use of health data within a learning health system: a qualitative study of the public’s perspective. In Review; 2021.
- 37. Franklin EF, Nichols HM, House L, Buzaglo J, Thiboldeaux K. Cancer patient perspectives on sharing of medical records and mobile device data for research purposes. J Patient Exp.2020;7(6):1115‑21.
- 38. Hammack-Aviran CM, Brelsford KM, Beskow LM. ethical considerations in the conduct of unregulated mHealth research: expert perspectives. J Law Med Ethics. 2020;48(S1):9‑36.
- 39. Hishiyama Y, Minari J, Suganuma N. The survey of public perception and general knowledge of genomic research and medicine in Japan conducted by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. J Hum Genet. 2019;64(5):397‑407.
- 40. Kisekka V, Goel S, Williams K. Disambiguating between privacy and security in the context of health care: new insights on the determinants of health technologies use. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2021;24(9):617‑23.
- 41. Manhas KP, Dodd SX, Page S, et al. Sharing longitudinal, non-biological birth cohort data: a cross-sectional analysis of parent consent preferences. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18:97.
- 42. Mbuthia D, Molyneux S, Njue M, Mwalukore S, Marsh V. Kenyan health stakeholder views on individual consent, general notification and governance processes for the re-use of hospital inpatient data to support learning on healthcare systems. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20:3.
- 43. Tully MP, Bozentko K, Clement S, et al. Investigating the extent to which patients should control access to patient records for research: a deliberative process using citizens’ juries. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(3):e112.
- 44. McCradden MD, Baba A, Saha A, et al. Ethical concerns around use of artificial intelligence in health care research from the perspective of patients with meningioma, caregivers and health care providers: a qualitative study. CMAJ Open. 2020;8(1):E90‑5.
- 45. Milne R, Morley KI, Almarri MA, et al. Demonstrating trustworthiness when collecting and sharing genomic data: public views across 22 countries. Genome Med. 2021;13(1):92.
- 46. Platt J, Bollinger J, Dvoskin R, Kardia SLR, Kaufman D. Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research. Genet Med. 2014;16(1):11‑8.
- 47. Saxena N, MacKinnon MP, Watling J, Willison D, Swinton M. Understanding Canadians’ attitudes and expectations - citizens’ dialogue on privacy and the use of personal information for health research in Canada. Canadian Policy Research Networks; mars 2006.
- 48. Schräfel MC, Gomer R, Alan A, Gerding E, Maple C. The internet of things: interaction challenges to meaningful consent at scale. Interactions. 2017;24(6):26‑33.
- 49. Spencer K, Sanders C, Whitley EA, Lund D, Kaye J, Dixon WG. Patient perspectives on sharing anonymized personal health data using a digital system for dynamic consent and research feedback: a qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(4):e66.
- 50. Manion FJ, Robbins RJ, Weems WA, Crowley RS. Security and privacy requirements for a multi-institutional cancer research data grid: an interview-based study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009;9:31.
- 51. Haga SB, O’Daniel J. Public perspectives regarding data-sharing practices in genomics research. Public Health Genomics. 2011;14(6):319‑24.
- 52. Ipsos MORI. The One-Way Mirror: Public Attitudes to Commercial Access to Health Data. Wellcome Trust; 2016.
- 53. NICE Citizens Council. What Ethical and Practical Issues Need to Be Considered in the Use of Anonymised Information Derived from Personal Care Records as Part of the Evaluation of Treatments and Delivery of Care? London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Citizens Council Reports No. 18; 2015.
- 54. De Vries RG, Ryan KA, Gordon L, et al. Biobanks and the moral concerns of donors: a democratic deliberation. Qual Health Res. 2019;29(13):1942‑53.
- 55. Drobotowicz K, Kauppinen M, Kujala S. Trustworthy AI services in the public sector: what are citizens saying about it? In: Dalpiaz F, Spoletini P, éditeurs. Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 99‑115.
- 56. Schmit C, Ajayi KV, Ferdinand AO, et al. Communicating with patients about software for enhancing privacy in secondary database research involving record linkage: Delphi study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(12):e20783.
- 57. Willison DJ, Trowbridge J, Greiver M, Keshavjee K, Mumford D, Sullivan F. Participatory governance over research in an academic research network: the case of Diabetes Action Canada. BMJ Open. 2019;9(4):e026828.
- 58. Atkin C, Crosby B, Dunn K, et al. Perceptions of anonymised data use and awareness of the NHS data opt-out amongst patients, carers and healthcare staff. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7:40.
- 59. Bak MAR, Veeken R, Blom MT, Tan HL, Willems DL. Health data research on sudden cardiac arrest: perspectives of survivors and their next-of-kin. BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22:7.
- 60. Ballantyne A, Schaefer GO. Consent and the ethical duty to participate in health data research. J Med Ethics. 2018;44(6):392‑6.
- 61. Bernaerdt J, Moerenhout T, Devisch I. Vulnerable patients’ attitudes towards sharing medical data and granular control in patient portal systems: an interview study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2021;27(2):429‑37.
- 62. Dirks LG, Shaw JL, Hiratsuka VY, Beans JA, Kelly JJ, Dillard DA. Perspectives on communication and engagement with regard to collecting biospecimens and family health histories for cancer research in a rural Alaska Native community. J Community Genet. 2019;10(3):435‑46.
- 63. Douglas A, Ward HJT, Bhopal R, et al. Is the linkage of census and health data justified? Views from a public panel of the Scottish Health and Ethnicity Linkage study. J Public Health. 2018;40(2):435‑40.
- 64. Jao I, Kombe F, Mwalukore S, et al. Research stakeholders’ views on benefits and challenges for public health research data sharing in Kenya: the importance of trust and social relations. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(9):e0135545.
- 65. Jones K, Daniels H, Heys S, Lacey A, Ford DV. Toward a risk-utility data governance framework for research using genomic and phenotypic data in safe havens: multifaceted review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(5):e16346.
- 66. Lemke AA, Wolf WA, Hebert-Beirne J, Smith ME. Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(6):368‑77.
- 67. Overby C, Maloney K, Alestock T, et al. Prioritizing approaches to engage community members and build trust in biobanks: a survey of attitudes and opinions of adults within outpatient practices at the University of Maryland. J Pers Med. 2015;5(3):264‑79.
- 68. Davidson S, Mclean C, Treanor S, et al. Public Acceptability of Data Sharing Between the Public, Private and Third Sectors for Research Purposes. Scottish Government; 2013.
- 69. Tracy CS, Dantas GC, Upshur RE. Feasibility of a patient decision aid regarding disclosure of personal health information: qualitative evaluation of the Health Care Information Directive. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2004;4:13.
- 70. Xafis V. The acceptability of conducting data linkage research without obtaining consent: lay people’s views and justifications. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16:79.
- 71. Courbier S, Dimond R, Bros-Facer V. Share and protect our health data: an evidence based approach to rare disease patients’ perspectives on data sharing and data protection - quantitative survey and recommendations. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14(1):175.
- 72. Mayo RM, Summey JF, Williams JE, Spence RA, Kim S, Jagsi R. Qualitative study of oncologists’ views on the CancerLinQ Rapid Learning System. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(3):e176‑84.
- 73. NICE Citizens Council. The Attitude of the Public to the Use of Patient Information Obtained from Medical Records by the National Confidential Enquiries. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Citizens Council Reports No. 3; mai 2004.
- 74. Chung AE, Vu MB, Myers K, Burris J, Kappelman MD. Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America Partners Patient-Powered Research Network: patient perspectives on facilitators and barriers to building an impactful patient-powered research network. Med Care. 2018;56(Suppl 10):S33‑40.
- 75. Jones KH, Ford EM, Lea N, et al. Toward the development of data governance standards for using clinical free-text data in health research: position paper. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6):e16760.
- 76. Nelson DE, Spieker MR, Hesse BW. Communicating health data. Int Public Health J. 2011;3(2):151‑65.
- 77. Rake EA, van Gelder MMHJ, Grim DC, Heeren B, Engelen LJLPG, van de Belt TH. Personalized consent flow in contemporary data sharing for medical research: a viewpoint. BioMed Res Int. 2017;2017:7147212.
- 78. Tully MP, Hassan L, Oswald M, Ainsworth J. Commercial use of health data—A public “trial” by citizens’ jury. Learn Health Syst. 2019;3(4):e10200.
- 79. Middleton A, Milne R, Thorogood A, et al. Attitudes of publics who are unwilling to donate DNA data for research. Eur J Med Genet. 2019;62(5):316‑23.
- 80. Meulenkamp TM, Gevers SJK, Bovenberg JA, Smets EMA. Researchers’ opinions towards the communication of results of biobank research: a survey study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012;20(3):258‑62.
- 81. Sabatello M, Blake LA, Chao A, et al. Including the blind community in precision medicine research: findings from a national survey and recommendations. Genet Med. 2019;21(11):2631‑8.
- 82. Hivon J, Titah R. Conceptualizing citizen participation in open data use at the city level. Transform Gov People Process Policy. 2017;11(1):99‑118.
- 83. Tindana P, Depuur C, de Vries J, Seeley J, Parker M. Informed consent in genomic research and biobanking: taking feedback of findings seriously. Glob Bioeth. 2020;31(1):200‑15.
- 84. Tosoni S, Voruganti I, Lajkosz K, et al. The use of personal health information outside the circle of care: consent preferences of patients from an academic health care institution. BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22:29.
- 85. McCormack P, Kole A, Gainotti S, et al. ‘You should at least ask’. The expectations, hopes and fears of rare disease patients on large-scale data and biomaterial sharing for genomics research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(10):1403‑8.
- 86. James R, Tsosie R, Sahota P, et al. Exploring pathways to trust: a tribal perspective on data sharing. Genet Med. 2014;16(11):820‑6.
- 87. Hobbs A, Starkbaum J, Gottweis U, Wichmann HE, Gottweis H. The privacy-reciprocity connection in biobanking: comparing German with UK strategies. Public Health Genomics. 2012;15(5):272‑84.
- 88. Richards JE, Bane E, Fullerton SM, Ludman EJ, Jarvik G. Allocation of resources to communication of research result summaries. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016;11(4):364‑9.
- 89. McCradden MD, Sarker T, Paprica PA. Conditionally positive: a qualitative study of public perceptions about using health data for artificial intelligence research. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e039798.
- 90. Street J, Fabrianesi B, Adams C, et al. Sharing administrative health data with private industry: A report on two citizens’ juries. Health Expect. 2021;24(4):1337‑48.
- 91. Ipsos MORI. The Use of Personal Health Information in Medical Research - General Public Consultation. Medical Research Council; 2007.
- 92. Woodbury RB, Beans JA, Wark KA, Spicer P, Hiratsuka VY. Community perspectives on communicating about precision medicine in an Alaska Native Tribal Health Care System. Front Commun. 2020;5:70.
- 93. Cheung C, Bietz MJ, Patrick K, Bloss CS. Privacy attitudes among early adopters of emerging health technologies. PloS ONE. 2016;11:e0166389.
- 94. Kaphingst KA, Janoff JM, Harris LN, Emmons KM. Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research. Clin Genet. 2006;69(5):393‑8.
- 95. Kaufman D, Murphy J, Erby L, Hudson K, Scott J. Veterans’ attitudes regarding a database for genomic research. Genet Med. 2009;11(5):329‑37.
- 96. McGuire AL, Achenbaum LS, Whitney SN, et al. Perspectives on human microbiome research ethics. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2012;7(3):1‑14.
- 97. Cheung FY, Clatch L, Wolf SM, Clayton EW, Lawrenz F. Key expert stakeholder perceptions of the law of genomics: identified problems and potential solutions. J Law Med Ethics. 2020;48(1):87‑104.
- 98. Tabor HK, Stock J, Brazg T, et al. Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A(6):1310‑9.
- 99. Master Z, Claudio JO, Rachul C, Wang JCY, Minden MD, Caulfield T. Cancer patient perceptions on the ethical and legal issues related to biobanking. BMC Med Genomics. 2013;6:8.
- 100. Hiratsuka VanessaY, Brown JK, Hoeft TJ, Dillard DA. Alaska Native people’s perceptions, understandings, and expectations for research involving biological specimens. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2012;71(1):18642.
- 101. Riso B, Tupasela A, Vears DF, et al. Ethical sharing of health data in online platforms - which values should be considered? Life Sci Soc Policy. 2017;13:12.
- 102. Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Jones RD, et al. Effect of public deliberation on patient attitudes regarding consent and data use in a learning health care system for oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(34):3203‑11.
- 103. Cumyn A, Dault R, Barton A, Cloutier AM, Ethier JF. Citizens, research ethics committee members and researchers’ attitude toward information and consent for the secondary use of health data: implications for research within learning health systems. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021;16(3):165‑78.
- 104. Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Sabolch A, et al. Perspectives of patients with cancer on the ethics of rapid-learning health systems. Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2017;35(20):2315‑23.
- 105. Joly Y, Dalpé G, So D, Birko S. Fair shares and sharing fairly: a survey of public views on open science, informed consent and participatory research in biobanking. PloS ONE. 2015;10(7):e0129893.
- 106. Sexton A, Shepherd E, Duke-Williams O, Eveleigh A. A balance of trust in the use of government administrative data. Arch Sci. 2017;17(4):305‑30.
- 107. Clarke H, Clark S, Birkin M, Iles-Smith H, Glaser A, Morris MA. Understanding barriers to novel data linkages: topic modeling of the results of the LifeInfo Survey. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(5):e24236.
- 108. Westin AF. How the Public Views Privacy and Health Research – Results of a National Survey Commissioned by the Institute of Medicine Committee on “Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information: The HIPAA Privacy Rule”. Institute of Medicine Committee; 2008.
- 109. Dimitropoulos L, Patel V, Scheffler SA, Posnack S. Public attitudes toward health information exchange: perceived benefits and concerns. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(12 Spec No.):SP111-6.
- 110. Harle CA, Golembiewski EH, Rahmanian KP, et al. Patient preferences toward an interactive e-consent application for research using electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(3):360‑8.
- 111. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. Informed consent in genome-scale research: what do prospective participants think? AJOB Prim Res. 2012;3(3):3‑11.
- 112. Jones KH, Daniels H, Heys S, Ford DV. Toward an ethically founded framework for the use of mobile phone call detail records in health research. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2019;7(3):e11969.
- 113. O’Brien EC, Rodriguez AM, Kum HC, et al. Patient perspectives on the linkage of health data for research: Insights from an online patient community questionnaire. Int J Med Inf. 2019;127:9‑17.
- 114. Peppercorn J, Campbell E, Isakoff S, et al. Patient preferences for use of archived biospecimens from oncology trials when adequacy of informed consent is unclear. The Oncologist. 2020;25(1):78‑86.
- 115. Colombo C, Roberto A, Krleza-Jeric K, Parmelli E, Banzi R. Sharing individual participant data from clinical studies: a cross-sectional online survey among Italian patient and citizen groups. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e024863.
- 116. Lysaght T, Ballantyne A, Xafis V, et al. “Who is watching the watchdog?”: ethical perspectives of sharing health-related data for precision medicine in Singapore. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;21:118.
- 117. Snell K, Starkbaum J, Lauß G, Vermeer A, Helén I. From protection of privacy to control of data streams: a focus group study on biobanks in the information society. Public Health Genomics. 2012;15(5):293‑302.
- 118. Jones KH, Daniels H, Heys S, Ford DV. Public views on using mobile phone call detail records in health research: qualitative study. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2019;7(1):e11730.
- 119. Sanderson SC, Brothers KB, Mercaldo ND, et al. Public attitudes toward consent and data sharing in biobank research: a large multi-site experimental survey in the US. Am J Hum Genet. 2017;100(3):414‑27.
- 120. Page SA, Manhas KP, Muruve DA. A survey of patient perspectives on the research use of health information and biospecimens. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17:48.
- 121. Mazor KM, Richards A, Gallagher M, et al. Stakeholders’ views on data sharing in multicenter studies. J Comp Eff Res. 2017;6(6):537‑47.
- 122. Teng J, Bentley C, Burgess MM, O’Doherty KC, McGrail KM. Sharing linked data sets for research: results from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada. Int J Popul Data Sci. 2019;4(1).
- 123. Mouton Dorey C, Baumann H, Biller-Andorno N. Patient data and patient rights: Swiss healthcare stakeholders’ ethical awareness regarding large patient data sets – a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19:20.
- 124. Riggs ER, Azzariti DR, Niehaus A, et al. Development of a consent resource for genomic data sharing in the clinical setting. Genet Med. 2019;21(1):81‑8.
- 125. Burstein MD, Robinson JO, Hilsenbeck SG, McGuire AL, Lau CC. Pediatric data sharing in genomic research: attitudes and preferences of parents. Pediatrics. 2014;133(4):690‑7.
- 126. Darquy S, Moutel G, Lapointe AS, et al. Patient/family views on data sharing in rare diseases: study in the European LeukoTreat project. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(3):338‑43.
- 127. Neves AL, Poovendran D, Freise L, et al. Health care professionals’ perspectives on the secondary use of health records to improve quality and safety of care in England: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(9):e14135.
- 128. Goytia CN, Kastenbaum I, Shelley D, Horowitz CR, Kaushal R. A tale of 2 constituencies: exploring patient and clinician perspectives in the age of big data. Med Care. 2018;56(Suppl 1):S64‑9.
- 129. Rivas Velarde MC, Tsantoulis P, Burton-Jeangros C, Aceti M, Chappuis P, Hurst-Majno S. Citizens’ views on sharing their health data: the role of competence, reliability and pursuing the common good. BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22:62.
- 130. Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am J Hum Genet. 2009;85(5):643‑54.
- 131. Centre canadien pour la cybersécurité. Repérer les cas de mésinformation, désinformation et malinformation. ITSAP.00.300; 2024.
- 132. Mamo LA, Browe DK, Logan HC, Kim KK. Patient informed governance of distributed research networks: results and discussion from six patient focus groups. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2013;2013:920‑9.
- 133. Brall C, Berlin C, Zwahlen M, Ormond KE, Egger M, Vayena E. Public willingness to participate in personalized health research and biobanking: A large-scale Swiss survey. Kerasidou A, éditeur. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(4):e0249141.
- 134. Rushmer R, Themessel-Huber M, Coyle J, Humphris G, Dowell J, Williams B. Is the routine recording of primary care consultations possible … and desirable? Lessons for researchers from a consultation with multiple stakeholders. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(2):247‑53.
- 135. Bull S, Cheah PY, Denny S, et al. Best practices for ethical sharing of individual-level health research data from low- and middle-income settings. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015;10(3):302‑13.
- 136. Downing NR, Williams JK, Daack-Hirsch S, Driessnack M, Simon CM. Genetics specialists’ perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90(1):133‑8.
- 137. Hassan L, Dalton A, Hammond C, Tully MP. A deliberative study of public attitudes towards sharing genomic data within NHS genomic medicine services in England. Public Underst Sci. 2020;29(7):702‑17.
- 138. Meulenkamp TM, Gevers SK, Bovenberg JA, Koppelman GH, Vlieg AVH, Smets EMA. Communication of biobanks’ research results: What do (potential) participants want? Am J Med Genet A. 2010;152A(10):2482‑92.
- 139. Seltzer E, Goldshear J, Guntuku SC, et al. Patients’ willingness to share digital health and non-health data for research: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19:157.
- 140. Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines, Conseil de recherches en sciences naturelles et en génie du Canada, Institut de recherche en santé du Canada. Énoncé de politique des trois conseils, éthique de la recherche avec des êtres humains - EPTC 2. Ottawa; 2022.
- 141. Vezyridis P, Timmons S. Resisting big data exploitations in public healthcare: free riding or distributive justice? Sociol Health Illn. 2019;41(8):1585‑99.
- 142. Watson K, Payne DM. Ethical practice in sharing and mining medical data. J Inf Commun Ethics Soc. 2020;19(1):1‑19.
- 143. Wetzels M, Broers E, Peters P, Feijs L, Widdershoven J, Habibovic M. Patient perspectives on health data privacy and management: “where is my data and whose is it?” Int J Telemed Appl. 2018;2018:1‑6.
- 144. Terry AL, Stewart M, Fortin M, et al. Gaps in primary healthcare electronic medical record research and knowledge: findings of a pan-Canadian study. Healthc Policy. 2014;10(1):46‑59.
- 145. Willison DJ. Patients’ consent preferences for research uses of information in electronic medical records: interview and survey data. BMJ. 2003;326(7385):373.
- 146. Mursaleen LR, Stamford JA, Jones DA, Windle R, Isaacs T. Attitudes towards data collection, ownership and sharing among patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Park Dis. 2017;7(3):523‑31.
- 147. Kerath SM, Klein G, Kern M, et al. Beliefs and attitudes towards participating in genetic research – a population based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:114.
- 148. Middleton A, Milne R, Howard H, et al. Members of the public in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia expressing genetic exceptionalism say they are more willing to donate genomic data. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28(4):424‑34.
- 149. Carr D, Littler K. Sharing research data to improve public health: a funder perspective. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015;10(3):314‑6.
- 150. Tsai FJ, Junod V. Medical research using governments’ health claims databases: with or without patients’ consent? J Public Health Oxf Engl. 2018;40(4):871‑7.
- 151. Mählmann L, Schee gen. Halfmann S, von Wyl A, Brand A. Attitudes towards personal genomics and sharing of genetic data among older Swiss adults: a qualitative study. Public Health Genomics. 2017;20(5):293‑306.
- 152. Richter G, Borzikowsky C, Lieb W, Schreiber S, Krawczak M, Buyx A. Patient views on research use of clinical data without consent: Legal, but also acceptable? Eur J Hum Genet. 2019;27(6):841‑7.
- 153. Lucero RJ, Kearney J, Cortes Y, et al. Benefits and risks in secondary use of digitized clinical data: views of community members living in a predominantly ethnic minority urban neighborhood. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2015;6(2):12‑22.
- 154. Meulenkamp TM, Gevers SK, Bovenberg JA, Koppelman GH, Vlieg A van H, Smets EMA. Communication of biobanks’ research results: What do (potential) participants want? Am J Med Genet A. 2010;152A(10):2482‑92.
- 155. Jamal L, Sapp JC, Lewis K, et al. Research participants’ attitudes towards the confidentiality of genomic sequence information. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22(8):964‑8.
- 156. Kasperbauer TJ. Protecting health privacy even when privacy is lost. J Med Ethics. 2020;46(11):768‑72.
- 157. Cumyn A, Barton A, Dault R, Cloutier AM, Jalbert R, Ethier JF. Informed consent within a learning health system: A scoping review. Learn Health Syst. 2020;4(2):e10206.