19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Respect, justice and learning are limited when patients are deidentified data subjects

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Critical for advancing a Learning Health System (LHS) in the U.S., a regulatory safe harbor for deidentified data reduces barriers to learning from care at scale while minimizing privacy risks. We examine deidentified data policy as a mechanism for synthesizing the ethical obligations underlying clinical care and human subjects research for an LHS which conceptually and practically integrates care and research, blurring the roles of patient and subject.

          Methods

          First, we discuss respect for persons vis‐a‐vis the systemic secondary use of data and tissue collected in the fiduciary context of clinical care. We argue that, without traditional informed consent or duty to benefit the individual, deidentification may allow secondary use to supersede the primary purpose of care. Next, we consider the effectiveness of deidentification for minimizing harms via privacy protection and maximizing benefits via promoting learning and translational care. We find that deidentification is unable to fully protect privacy given the vastness of health data and current technology, yet it imposes limitations to learning and barriers for efficient translation. After that, we evaluate the impact of deidentification on distributive justice within an LHS ethical framework in which patients are obligated to contribute to learning and the system has a duty to translate knowledge into better care. Such a system may permit exacerbation of health disparities as it accelerates learning without mechanisms to ensure that individuals' contributions and benefits are fair and balanced.

          Results

          We find that, despite its established advantages, system‐wide use of deidentification may be suboptimal for signaling respect, protecting privacy or promoting learning, and satisfying requirements of justice for patients and subjects.

          Conclusions

          Finally, we highlight ethical, socioeconomic, technological and legal challenges and next steps, including a critical appreciation for novel approaches to realize an LHS that maximizes efficient, effective learning and just translation without the compromises of deidentification.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research

          This study aimed to review the literature describing and quantifying time lags in the health research translation process. Papers were included in the review if they quantified time lags in the development of health interventions. The study identified 23 papers. Few were comparable as different studies use different measures, of different things, at different time points. We concluded that the current state of knowledge of time lags is of limited use to those responsible for R&D and knowledge transfer who face difficulties in knowing what they should or can do to reduce time lags. This effectively ‘blindfolds’ investment decisions and risks wasting effort. The study concludes that understanding lags first requires agreeing models, definitions and measures, which can be applied in practice. A second task would be to develop a process by which to gather these data.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States.

            We have little systematic information about the extent to which standard processes involved in health care--a key element of quality--are delivered in the United States. We telephoned a random sample of adults living in 12 metropolitan areas in the United States and asked them about selected health care experiences. We also received written consent to copy their medical records for the most recent two-year period and used this information to evaluate performance on 439 indicators of quality of care for 30 acute and chronic conditions as well as preventive care. We then constructed aggregate scores. Participants received 54.9 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 54.3 to 55.5) of recommended care. We found little difference among the proportion of recommended preventive care provided (54.9 percent), the proportion of recommended acute care provided (53.5 percent), and the proportion of recommended care provided for chronic conditions (56.1 percent). Among different medical functions, adherence to the processes involved in care ranged from 52.2 percent for screening to 58.5 percent for follow-up care. Quality varied substantially according to the particular medical condition, ranging from 78.7 percent of recommended care (95 percent confidence interval, 73.3 to 84.2) for senile cataract to 10.5 percent of recommended care (95 percent confidence interval, 6.8 to 14.6) for alcohol dependence. The deficits we have identified in adherence to recommended processes for basic care pose serious threats to the health of the American public. Strategies to reduce these deficits in care are warranted. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                grossms@upmc.edu , mgross23@jhmi.edu
                Journal
                Learn Health Syst
                Learn Health Syst
                10.1002/(ISSN)2379-6146
                LRH2
                Learning Health Systems
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2379-6146
                04 March 2022
                July 2022
                : 6
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1002/lrh2.v6.3 )
                : e10303
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] University of Pittsburgh Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Center for Bioethics and Health Law Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA
                [ 2 ] Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics Baltimore Maryland USA
                [ 3 ] Learning Health Systems Initiative University of Michigan Medical School Ann Arbor Michigan USA
                [ 4 ] Flashbots New York New York USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Marielle S. Gross, MD, MBE, University of Pittsburgh Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences University of Pittsburgh Center for Bioethics and Health Law, Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.

                Email: grossms@ 123456upmc.edu , mgross23@ 123456jhmi.edu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3009-4082
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9702-7693
                Article
                LRH210303
                10.1002/lrh2.10303
                9284924
                35860318
                f9101f7b-f26e-4caf-909f-d76f56343bcf
                © 2022 The Authors. Learning Health Systems published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of University of Michigan.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 01 December 2021
                : 13 March 2021
                : 04 January 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 0, Pages: 8, Words: 6708
                Categories
                Policy Analyses
                Policy Analyses
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                July 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.7 mode:remove_FC converted:15.07.2022

                common rule,data use policy,deidentification,deidentified data,ethics,federal regulations,hipaa,human subjects research,learning health systems,structural justice

                Comments

                Comment on this article