Cited by 74Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcareElectronic Health Records Systems

Patient views on research use of clinical data without consent: Legal, but also acceptable?

Open access
Richter, Gesine, Borzikowsky, Christoph, Lieb, Wolfgang, Schreiber, Stefan, Krawczak, Michael, Buyx, Alena·2019·European Journal of Human Genetics

Abstract

The research exemption implemented in the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (EU-GDPR) gives member states leeway in determining whether patient consent is required for secondary data use in medical research. However, even though broad consent has become common in data-rich medical research in many EU countries, giving up consent altogether is likely to be controversial. The aim of this study was to examine whether abolishing consent for secondary data use would be acceptable to patients. A questionnaire study was conducted among 700 outpatients of a northern German university hospital to assess their attitude towards use of clinical data for scientific research without consent. There was both strong willingness to give broad consent for secondary data use (468 of 503 responders, 93.0%) and strong approval of abolishing patient consent (n = 381, 75.7%) among study participants. The willingness to give consent was moderately associated with approval of the respective stipulations by the EU-GDPR. In research settings where broad consent is widely accepted (e.g. university hospitals), abolishing consent for secondary research use of clinical data will likely be acceptable to a large majority of patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41431-019-0340-6

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Such fixed identifiers in EHR are the best information sources for criminals to get easy access to the patient's bank accounts for getting loans or to capture their passports and other important documents.

    “Such identifiers in EHR are the best information sources for the criminals to get easy access to the patient's bank accounts for getting loans or to capture their passports and other important documents (property, insurance etc.) [93].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kaye J. Embedding biobanks in a changing context. In: Kaye J, Gibbons SMC, Heeney C, Parker M, Smart A, editors. Governing Biobanks: understanding the interplay between law and practice. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing; 2012. p. 30-51.
  2. Kaye J, Terry ST, Juengst E, et al. Including all voices in inter- national datasharing governance. Hum Genom. 2018;12:13.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Richter, G., Borzikowsky, C., Lieb, W., Schreiber, S., Krawczak, M., & Buyx, A.
Affiliations
  • Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE)
  • University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (DE)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
Richter, Gesine
Venue
European Journal of Human Genetics
Published
2019-01-25
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
841-847
ISSN
  • 1018-4813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5438
OpenAlex
W2912178335
Cited by
74
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4
FWCI
10.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Human Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
broad consent, data reuse, patient consent, General Data Protection Regulation, research exemption, patient attitudes, data protection law, medical research ethics
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude, European Union, Female, Humans, Informed Consent, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review