Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Medical Ethics logoLink to Journal of Medical Ethics
. 2004 Feb;30(1):104–109. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.005157

Public attitudes towards the use of primary care patient record data in medical research without consent: a qualitative study

M Robling 1, K Hood 1, H Houston 1, R Pill 1, J Fay 1, H Evans 1
PMCID: PMC1757117  PMID: 14872086

Abstract

Objectives: Recent legislative changes within the United Kingdom have stimulated professional debate about access to patient data within research. However, there is currently little awareness of public views about such research. The authors sought to explore attitudes of the public, and their lay representatives, towards the use of primary care medical record data for research when patient consent was not being sought.

Methods: 49 members of the public and four non-medical members of local community health councils in South Wales, UK gave their views on the value and acceptability of three current research scenarios, each describing access to data without patient consent.

Results: Among focus group participants, awareness of research in primary care was low, and the appropriateness of general practitioners as researchers was questioned. There was general support for research but also concerns expressed about data collection without consent. These included lack of respect and patient control over the process. Unauthorised access to data by external agencies was a common fear. Current data collection practices, including population based disease registers elicited much anxiety. The key informants were equally critical of the scenarios and generally less accepting.

Conclusions: This exploratory study has highlighted a number of areas of public concern when medical records are accessed for research without patient consent. Public acceptability regarding the use of medical records in research cannot simply be assumed. Further work is required to determine how widespread such views are and to inform those advising on confidentiality issues.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (167.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Al-Shahi R., Warlow C. Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit. BMJ. 2000 Oct 28;321(7268):1031–1032. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7268.1031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Shahi R., Warlow C. Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit. BMJ. 2000 Oct 28;321(7268):1031–1032. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7268.1031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker R., Shiels C., Stevenson K., Fraser R., Stone M. What proportion of patients refuse consent to data collection from their records for research purposes? Br J Gen Pract. 2000 Aug;50(457):655–656. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Capron Alexander Morgan. Protection of research subjects: do special rules apply in epidemiology? Law Med Health Care. 1991 Fall-Winter;19(3-4):184–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.1991.tb01813.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carman D., Britten N. Confidentiality of medical records: the patient's perspective. Br J Gen Pract. 1995 Sep;45(398):485–488. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Doyal L. Informed consent in medical research. Journals should not publish research to which patients have not given fully informed consent--with three exceptions. BMJ. 1997 Apr 12;314(7087):1107–1111. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7087.1107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dyer C. BMA's patient confidentiality rules are deemed unlawful. BMJ. 1999 Nov 6;319(7219):1221–1221. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7219.1221a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995 Jul 29;311(7000):299–302. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lachmann P. J. Consent and confidentiality--where are the limits? An introduction. J Med Ethics. 2003 Feb;29(1):2–3. doi: 10.1136/jme.29.1.2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. O'Brien J., Chantler C. Confidentiality and the duties of care. J Med Ethics. 2003 Feb;29(1):36–40. doi: 10.1136/jme.29.1.36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. O'Neill O. Some limits of informed consent. J Med Ethics. 2003 Feb;29(1):4–7. doi: 10.1136/jme.29.1.4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Pill R., Prior L., Wood F. Lay attitudes to professional consultations for common mental disorder: a sociological perspective. Br Med Bull. 2001;57:207–219. doi: 10.1093/bmb/57.1.207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Redsell S. A., Cheater F. M. The Data Protection Act (1998): implications for health researchers. J Adv Nurs. 2001 Aug;35(4):508–513. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01867.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Richards T. Court sanctions use of anonymised patient data. BMJ. 2000 Jan 8;320(7227):77B–77B. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Roberts L., Wilson S. Using patient identifiable data without consent. Argument for consent may invalidate research and stigmatise some patients. BMJ. 2001 Apr 7;322(7290):858–859. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sankila R., Martínez C., Parkin D. M., Storm H., Teppo L. Informed consent in cancer registries. Lancet. 2001 May 12;357(9267):1536–1536. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04699-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Strobl J., Cave E., Walley T. Data protection legislation: interpretation and barriers to research. BMJ. 2000 Oct 7;321(7265):890–892. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7265.890. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Turnberg L. Common sense and common consent in communicable disease surveillance. J Med Ethics. 2003 Feb;29(1):27–29. doi: 10.1136/jme.29.1.27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Van Teijlingen E. R., Rennie A. M., Hundley V., Graham W. The importance of conducting and reporting pilot studies: the example of the Scottish Births Survey. J Adv Nurs. 2001 May;34(3):289–295. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01757.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Verity Chris, Nicoll Angus. Consent, confidentiality, and the threat to public health surveillance. BMJ. 2002 May 18;324(7347):1210–1213. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Wald N., Law M., Meade T., Miller G., Alberman E., Dickinson J. Use of personal medical records for research purposes. BMJ. 1994 Nov 26;309(6966):1422–1424. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6966.1422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Warnock Mary. Informed consent -- a publisher's duty. BMJ. 1998 Mar 28;316(7136):1002–1003. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Medical Ethics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES