Article

Feasibility and cost of obtaining informed consent for essential review of medical records in large-scale health services research

Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy (Impact Factor: 1.73). 05/2009; 14(2):77-81. DOI: 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008085
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the effectiveness and cost of obtaining consent for review of medical records within the passively observed non-intervention arm of a cluster randomized controlled trial, 'Comparison Arm for ProtecT'.
Two hundred and thirty men, who had been notified to the trial by cancer registries as having prostate cancer, were sent a consent form from their general practitioner or secondary care clinician. The consent rate of participants to the review of their medical records and the estimated costs of the process were evaluated.
One hundred and seventy-nine men (84%: 95% CI = 78%, 89%) consented to have their medical notes reviewed at an estimated cost of pound123 (euro172, $248) per person.
A high consent rate for review of medical notes is achievable but at a cost. There needs to be renewed debate about the automatic need for consent to review medical records where the chance of personal harm is negligible and the purpose of the review is to provide robust evidence to save lives, prevent needless suffering, and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of health care delivery.

0 Followers
 · 
85 Views
  • Source
    Archives of Disease in Childhood 02/2012; 97(6):561-3. DOI:10.1136/archdischild-2011-301175 · 2.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The unknown nature of tomorrow’s research makes informed consent in biobank research a challenge. Whether the consent given by biobank participants is ‘broad’ or ‘narrow’, the ever present question remains the same: are new activities covered by the original consent? In this article, we focus on the meaning of, and the relation between, broad consent and re-consent in biobank research. We argue that broad consent should be understood as consenting to a framework—a framework which covers aims, core conditions for acceptable use, governance and how these affect participants. Changes that alter the framework in a fundamental way call for re-consent. Three biobank cases of current international interest are used to debate when re-consent is an ethical necessity: whole-genome sequencing, data sharing and commercial utilization. These reflections give us a more nuanced view on what consent is for. We claim that the introduction of broad consents in biobank research has not represented a betrayal of individual participant interests, as some critics have asserted. Broad consents combined with the possible use of re-consent are in certain settings not inferior, but rather ethically superior to narrow consents. In population-based research biobanks, they allow for a reconciliation between individual interest and public matters in society at large.
    Public Health Ethics 11/2011; 4(3):236-250. DOI:10.1093/phe/phr031 · 1.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Large-scale biorepositories that couple biologic specimens with electronic health records containing documentation of phenotypic expression can accelerate scientific research and discovery. However, differences between those subjects who participate in biorepository-based research and the population from which they are drawn may influence research validity. While an opt-out approach to biorepository-based research enhances inclusiveness, empirical research evaluating voluntariness, risk, and the feasibility of an opt-out approach is sparse, and factors influencing patients' decisions to opt out are understudied. Determining why patients choose to opt out may help to improve voluntariness, however there may be ethical and logistical challenges to studying those who opt out. In this perspective paper, the authors explore what is known about research based on the opt-out model, describe a large-scale biorepository that leverages the opt-out model, and review specific ethical and logistical challenges to bridging the research gaps that remain.
    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 07/2013; 20(E2). DOI:10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001937 · 3.93 Impact Factor