Cited by 59Ethics in Clinical ResearchElectronic Health Records SystemsEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Should free-text data in electronic medical records be shared for research? A citizens’ jury study in the UK

Open access
Ford, Elizabeth, Oswald, Malcolm, Hassan, Lamiece, Bozentko, Kyle, Nenadic, Goran, Cassell, Jackie·2020·Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract

Background: Use of routinely collected patient data for research and service planning is an explicit policy of the UK National Health Service and UK government. Much clinical information is recorded in free-text letters, reports and notes. These text data are generally lost to research, due to the increased privacy risk compared with structured data. We conducted a citizens’ jury which asked members of the public whether their medical free-text data should be shared for research for public benefit, to inform an ethical policy. Methods: Eighteen citizens took part over 3 days. Jurors heard a range of expert presentations as well as arguments for and against sharing free text, and then questioned presenters and deliberated together. They answered a questionnaire on whether and how free text should be shared for research, gave reasons for and against sharing and suggestions for alleviating their concerns. Results: Jurors were in favour of sharing medical data and agreed this would benefit health research, but were more cautious about sharing free-text than structured data. They preferred processing of free text where a computer extracted information at scale. Their concerns were lack of transparency in uses of data, and privacy risks. They suggested keeping patients informed about uses of their data, and giving clear pathways to opt out of data sharing. Conclusions: Informed citizens suggested a transparent culture of research for the public benefit, and continuous improvement of technology to protect patient privacy, to mitigate their concerns regarding privacy risks of using patient text data.

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 · 10.1136/medethics-2019-105472

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • ChatGPT's advanced features, such as natural language processing and machine learning, may pose privacy risks.

    “In addition, ChatGPT’s advanced features, such as natural language processing and machine learning, may pose privacy risks [35,36].”

    From Ethical Considerations of Using ChatGPT in Health Care (2023) · cites this paper as [36]

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: 4

  1. [22]Velupillai S, Suominen H, Liakata M, et al Using clinical natural language processing for health outcomes research. J Biomed Inform 2018; 88: 11– 19. 30368002 PMC6986921
  2. [27]Roberts E, Wessely S, Chalder T, et al Mortality of people with chronic fatigue syndrome. Lancet 2016: 1– 6. 26873808
  3. [29]Hayes R, Downs J, Chang C-K, et al The effect of clozapine on premature mortality. Schizophrenia Bulletin 2015; 41(3): 644– 55. 25154620 PMC4393681
  4. [41]Wakeford T Citizens juries: a radical alternative for social research. Soc Res Update 2002; 37(1): 1– 4.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ford, E., Oswald, M., Hassan, L., Bozentko, K., Nenadic, G., & Cassell, J.
Affiliations
  • Brighton and Sussex Medical School (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Ford, Elizabeth
Venue
Journal of Medical Ethics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-05-26
Volume
46
Issue
6
Pages
367-377
ISSN
  • 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4257
OpenAlex
W3028781881
Cited by
59
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3
FWCI
6.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
electronic health records, research data sharing, citizen juries, public attitudes, patient privacy, routinely collected health data, informed consent, health research ethics
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Humans, State Medicine, Privacy, Information Dissemination, Electronic Health Records

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