Display options
Cite
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):12-22doi: 10.1080/23294515.2014.949906.
Lucero, R. J., Kearney, J., Cortes, Y., Arcia, A., Appelbaum, P., Fernández, R. L., & Luchsinger, J. (2015). Benefits and Risks in Secondary Use of Digitized Clinical Data: Views of Community Members Living in a Predominantly Ethnic Minority Urban Neighborhood. AJOB empirical bioethics, 6(2), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2014.949906
Lucero, Robert J, 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 empirical bioethics vol. 6,2 (2015): 12-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2014.949906
Lucero RJ, Kearney J, Cortes Y, Arcia A, Appelbaum P, Fernández RL, Luchsinger J. 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. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2014.949906. PMID: 26101782; PMCID: PMC4475405.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2015;6(2):12-22. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2014.949906.

Benefits and Risks in Secondary Use of Digitized Clinical Data: Views of Community Members Living in a Predominantly Ethnic Minority Urban Neighborhood.

AJOB empirical bioethics

Robert J Lucero, Joan Kearney, Yamnia Cortes, Adriana Arcia, Paul Appelbaum, Roberto Lewis Fernández, Jose Luchsinger

Affiliations

  1. Columbia University School of Nursing.
  2. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.

PMID: 26101782 PMCID: PMC4475405 DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2014.949906

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is potential to increase the speed of scientific discovery and implement personalized health care by using digitized clinical data collected on the patient care experience. The use of these data in research raises concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of personal health information. This study explored community members' views on the secondary use of digitized clinical data to (1) recruit participants for clinical studies; (2) recruit family members of persons with an index condition for primary studies; and (3) conduct studies of information related to stored biospecimens.

METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design was used to examine the bioethical issues outlined from the perspective of urban-dwelling community members. Focus groups were used for data collection, and emergent content analysis was employed to organize and interpret the data.

RESULTS: Thirty community members attended one of four focus groups ranging in size from 4 to 11 participants. Five critical themes emerged from the focus-group material: (1) perceived motivators for research participation; (2) objective or "real-life" barriers to research participation; (3) a psychological component of uncertainty and mistrust; (4) preferred mechanisms for recruitment and participation; and (5) cultural characteristics that can impact understanding and willingness to engage in research.

CONCLUSIONS: The overriding concern of community members regarding research participation and/or secondary clinical and nonclinical use of digitized information was that their involvement would be safe and the outcome would be meaningful to them and to others. According to participants, biospecimens acquired during routine clinical visits or for research are no longer possessions of the participant. Although the loss of privacy was a concern for participants, they preferred that researchers access their personal health information using a digitized clinical file rather than through a paper-based medical record.

Keywords: community–institutional relations; data sharing; genetic privacy; minority health; patient data privacy; research ethics

References

  1. Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1044-52 - PubMed
  2. Epidemiology. 2011 May;22(3):298-301 - PubMed
  3. Ethn Dis. 2005 Winter;15(1):68-75 - PubMed
  4. West J Nurs Res. 2001 Oct;23(6):575-91 - PubMed
  5. Milbank Q. 2004;82(3):457-81, table of contents - PubMed
  6. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39(1):25-9 - PubMed
  7. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2000 Feb;14(1):3-11 - PubMed
  8. Am J Public Health. 2001 Nov;91(11):1832-41 - PubMed
  9. Fam Med. 2008 Jan;40(1):46-51 - PubMed
  10. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Sep 1;151(5):359-60 - PubMed
  11. Ethn Dis. 2004 Summer;14(3):423-30 - PubMed
  12. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 Sep-Oct;26(5):1373-83 - PubMed
  13. N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 9;360(15):1477-9 - PubMed
  14. Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88 - PubMed
  15. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2001 Jul-Sep;15(3):137-45 - PubMed
  16. Genet Med. 2006 Jun;8(6):354-60 - PubMed
  17. J Abnorm Psychol. 1994 Feb;103(1):67-71 - PubMed
  18. Community Genet. 2008;11(3):171-8 - PubMed
  19. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Jan-Feb;14(1):1-9 - PubMed
  20. Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Nov 1;164(9):845-51 - PubMed
  21. Genet Med. 2010 Feb;12(2):116-21 - PubMed
  22. Ethn Health. 2010 Jun;15(3):223-36 - PubMed
  23. Res Nurs Health. 2000 Aug;23(4):334-40 - PubMed
  24. Ann Epidemiol. 2000 Nov;10(8 Suppl):S35-40 - PubMed
  25. N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 5;363(6):501-4 - PubMed
  26. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Nov;29(11):2082-90 - PubMed
  27. Res Nurs Health. 2010 Feb;33(1):77-84 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support