Information in practice

Patients' consent preferences for research uses of information in electronic medical records: interview and survey data

Donald J Willison, assistant professor, Karim Keshavjee, associate member, Kalpana Nair, research assistant, Charlie Goldsmith, professor, Anne M Holbrook, associate professor,  for the COMPETE investigators

Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, 105 Main Street East, P1, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8N 1G6

Correspondence to: D Willison willison{at}mcmaster.ca

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

Objectives: To assess patients' preferred method of consent for use of information from electronic medical records for research.
Design: Interviews and a structured survey of patients in practices with electronic medical records.
Setting: Family practices in southern Ontario, Canada.
Participants: 123 patients: 17 were interviewed and 106 completed a survey.
Main outcome measures: Patients' opinions and concerns on use of information from their medical records for research and their preferences for method of consent.
Results: Most interviewees were willing to allow the use of their information for research purposes, although the majority preferred that consent was sought first. The seeking of consent was considered an important element of respect for the individual. Most interviewees made little distinction between identifiable and anonymised data. Research sponsored by private insurance firms generated the greatest concern, and research sponsored by foundation the least. Sponsorship by drug companies evoked negative responses during interview and positive responses in the survey.
Conclusions: Patients are willing to allow information from their medical records to be used for research, but most prefer to be asked for consent either verbally or in writing.

What is already known on this topic Legislation is being introduced worldwide to restrict the circumstances under which personal information may be used for secondary purposes without consent Little empirical information exists about patients' concerns over privacy and preferences for consent for use of such information for research What this study adds Patients are willing to allow personal information to be used for research purposes but want to be actively consulted first Patients make little distinction between identifiable and non-identifiable information Most patients prefer a time limit for their consent

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

Researchers and policy makers studying quality of medical care often use administrative datasets. Recently, however, researchers have turned to electronic medical records, which contain more clinically relevant information. This raises several issues: use of these records may blur the boundary between patient care and research, there may be problems with obtaining individual informed consent in large population studies, and patients may be concerned about confidentiality. ^{1 2}

We assessed concerns over the use of information from electronic medical records for research and preferences for consent of patients whose doctors were enrolled in a southern Ontario project to improve prescribing through the use of electronic medical records, called the COMPETE study (Computerization of Medical Practices for the Enhancement of Therapeutic Effectiveness).

	Participants and methods

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

Our study comprised two steps: semistructured interviews with patients of doctors in the COMPETE study and a structured fixed response survey of patients registered with the doctors in our study.

We interviewed 18 patients (seven men, 11 women). One male participant later withdrew, leaving 17 patients: five responded to notices in their doctor's surgery, and 12 were identified by their doctor as being interested in the use of data for research purposes. The individual who withdrew had responded to a notice in the practice. The interviews explored preferences for being approached, the amount of detail to be provided about the research, the method of consent (positive or negative option, verbal or written), conditions around consent for any future uses of the information, and the influence of different sources of funding on willingness to participate (see bmj.com). Although the interviews were structured, patients' responses were open ended. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded independently by two reviewers.

Based on the interviews, we developed a self completed, fixed response survey to examine methods of consent in a representative sample of patients from 11 practices. The survey specified that information gleaned from medical records would be anonymised. Patients were asked about the amount of detail they would want to know about the research, their preferred method of being informed, the length of time that consent should be considered valid, the impact of sponsorship, and personal characteristics. We applied summary descriptive statistics and then considered observed differences between the sexes for the amount of detail patients wanted to know about the research and observed differences in level of concern about sponsorship.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

Interviews
Qualitative analysis yielded three major themes: balancing preferences for consent with pressures on time in the consultation, being treated with respect, and balancing the benefits and concerns related to research.

Patients did not want the obtaining of consent to detract from the reason for their appointment. However they believed that they should be informed of any research that used information from their medical records, and most thought that obtaining consent before use of that information would lead to less confusion and uncertainty:

I think that number 3 [providing written consent] would be the one that would probably give the most protection to all people involved. Because if you do one of the other things, information is used or given out or whatever and then I find out about it later and I decide to raise questions, then how can my physician explain himself. He's done this without my consent. But if there is a consent form on file, then we're both bound by that. Patient 6

Most patients were unaware that information on their health was currently being used for research purposes, despite a notice to that effect in the waiting room. A common sentiment was that it was a sign of respect that they be asked for permission first:

I think you need to give conscious consent to having any data, any personal data used, whether you are identified or not. That's certainly a right. That's your information, it's your medical history. Whether it's identified or not, you should control it. Patient 14

Patients generally expressed great trust in their doctor's judgment:

If you trust the doctor, I don't think it would worry me how much [data] you needed, and I do trust the doctor. Patient 15

This preference for consent extended to any new uses of the information in the future:

I would want to be able to consent to the use of the information for the new study, because . . . if it's a particular area that I worried about or have some reason to be concerned about, then I would want to know. Patient 6

Most patients thought about research in broad, general terms. For most, the interviews marked their first experience with medical research. The patients generally were positive about participating in research, noting that they wanted to help others:

If I could help other people and they need help down the road then I'm more than happy to do what I can. Patient 16

Patients were also asked their concerns on four sources of research funding (drug companies, software companies, insurance companies, and government). Strong concerns were voiced about funding by drug and insurance companies. Patients were wary of drug companies funding research in an effort to promote their product and of insurance companies withholding coverage for patients.

Patients were generally opposed to the idea of a researcher selling personal data to another researcher for a profit. However, they did consider it reasonable to charge to cover costsfor example, preparation timeor if those funds were reinvested in research.

I guess the issue for me would be what would they do with the money that they got from the sale of that data. If it was to make a profit, it would probably bother me. If they used it to fund research or put it back into the development of medications of some other sort, then it wouldn't bother me. Patient 9

Most patients had given little or no prior thought about the use of their personal information for anything other than their own health care. As the interviews progressed, the patients often formulated and revised their opinions.

Fixed response survey
Overall, 106 of 117 patients (91%) completed the survey: six (5%) were excluded due to lack of fluency in English, deafness, or cognitive impairment, and five (4%) were not interested in participating. The survey took five minutes. See bmj.com for characteristics of respondents.

Opt-in or opt-out preference
Twenty eight patients (26%) were satisfied with being notified passively about the use of their personal information for research purposes, with the option to opt out at any time. The remaining 78 patients (74%) wanted the opportunity to provide consent first. Preference for verbal and written consent was equal.

Level of detail
Seventeen patients (16%) wanted minimal information, 29 (27%) wanted limited information, and 60 (57%) wanted to know specific information: name of study, goals, benefits to others, and funding source (table). Women requested more details than men (62% and 46%, P=0.052).

Time limit
Thirty two patients (31%) needed no time limit for consent. Fifty two patients (49%) thought that consent should be valid for the duration of the study, and 21 (20%) preferred an annual review.

Source of funding
Fifty four patients (51%) expressed moderate to high concern over their doctor participating in research funded by insurance companies, and 46 (43%) expressed similar concern for government sponsorship (figure). The difference in level of concern was not significant. Funding by foundations evoked the least concern, and funding by the drug industry evoked relatively low concern. The difference in response to industry and foundation support was not significant.

View larger version (42K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Level of concern over sources of funding for research

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

Patients are willing to support and participate in research but want to be consulted first on the use of information from their medical records. They are also concerned about secondary uses of their data, particularly for marketing and insurance purposes. These messages are consistent with other surveys in recent years in Canada. ^{3 4} The lack of distinction between identifiable and anonymised information was consistent with a survey in Australia.⁵

In Canada, federal and provincial data protection laws apply to personal information only, but federal law is unclear in its definition of personal information, and there are inconsistencies in definition across provincial legislation.⁶ The Canadian Institutes of Health Research defines personal information as information that can identify, either directly or indirectly, a specific individual, can be manipulated by a reasonably foreseeable method to identify a specific individual, or can be linked with other accessible information by a reasonably foreseeable method to identify a specific individual.⁷

We removed all direct identifiers before transferring information from the electronic medical records. It was, however, still possible to indirectly identify an individual through the variables that remained. When the COMPETE study began, the research ethics board did not require individual patient consent, as the focus of the research was on doctors' prescribing behaviour.

Canadian federal and provincial laws generally allow for exemptions from consent for research purposes when, among other conditions, it is impracticable to obtain consent. Existing legislation does not interpret impracticability. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research considers several determinants of impracticability (see box) but these apply chiefly to existing datasets, rather than when designing, prospectively, a clinical information system where ongoing research is intended. How, then, should consent be sought? Doctors have insufficient time to obtain consent during consultations, feel uncomfortable with obtaining consent, and because of their fiduciary relationship are probably not the most appropriate people to obtain consent anyway.⁸

Determinants of impracticability for obtaining consent for research Size of population being researched Difficulty of contacting participants, either directly or indirectly Resultant risk of introducing bias into the research Risk of breaching privacy or inflicting psychological, social, or other harm by contacting the individual Undue hardship imposed on organisation when additional financial, material, human, or other resources are required It has also been recommended that determination of impracticability be made by a duly constituted research ethics board8

It makes sense to engage the public more generally in the use of personal information for research purposes. One approach would be to develop an "information directive," with patients identifying in advance the purposes for which information may be used. ^{9 10} Such a directive would not be able to provide the specifics of each use. Nevertheless, patients could be advised of potential uses and have the opportunity to consent for use of data at different levels of detail, depending on the application.

Study limitations
To determine the breadth of patients' concerns, we sought out patients who may have had concerns over computerisation of their doctor's practice. Most who came forward had given little thought to the topic. Responses shifted during the interview, and most patients had difficulty articulating their thoughts. Our findings should therefore be interpreted with caution.

The level of concern over use of the data varied with type of sponsorship. The findings in the fixed response survey were inconsistent with those of the interviews. Much of this inconsistency may be attributed to sentinel events in the media. At the time of the interviews there was prominent coverage of a dispute between a doctor and a pharmaceutical firm over publication of adverse findings of one of its products. By the time of the fixed response survey, industry sponsored television advertisements had been running for several weeks, promoting the health benefits of pharmaceutical innovation generally.

Although our fixed response survey had internal validity, the doctors who participated in the COMPETE study tended to be younger than average, and a greater proportion of those whose patients we studied were in singlehanded practice. The generalisability of our findings to other practices that keep electronic medical records is unknown.

Fixed response surveys have a limited ability to capture the tension between privacy and the potential benefits of research. Interviews and surveys are subject to framing bias and tend to address this tension in a superficial fashion, if at all. We therefore attempted to frame our questions in a neutral way. It may have been helpful to provide one or more case studies for patients to respond to, or to engage the public more widely through, for example, a citizens' jury or deliberative polling.

Conclusions
Patients are willing to allow their information to be used for research purposes, but most want to be consulted first. Obtaining individual consent for registries and research studies using medical records presents logistical challenges that call for new approaches to consent, taking into account the varying needs of the public and the evolving uses of personal information in a broader context.

	Acknowledgments

We thank Sue Troyan for assistance with reviewing the transcripts and in the planning and execution of the survey.

Contributors: See bmj.com

	Footnotes

Funding: DJW holds a career scholar award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and National Health Research and Development Programme. AMH holds a career investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. At the time of the study, the COMPETE project was funded jointly by Searle Canada, a research based pharmaceutical manufacturer, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This study was funded by all three sources.

Competing interests: None declared.

This is an abridged version; the full version is on bmj.com

The questionnaire appears on bmj.com

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

1.	Woodward B. Challenges to human subject protections in US medical research. JAMA 1999; 282: 1947-1952[Abstract/Free Full Text].
2.	Mitchell E, Sullivan F. A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980-97. BMJ 2001; 322: 279-282[Abstract/Free Full Text].
3.	Anon. Canadians and the confidentiality of their personal health information. Toronto: Angus Reid Group, 1999.
4.	Policy and Planning Division Saskatchewan Health. Consultation paper on protection of personal health information, 1998. www.health.gov.sk.ca/ph_br_health_leg_phiq/default.htm (accessed 18 Dec 2002).
5.	Morgan R. Privacy and the community. Sydney, NSW: Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner, 2001.
6.	Canadian Institutes of Health Research. In: Kosseim P, ed. In: A compendium of Canadian legislation respecting the protection of personal information in health research. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2000.
7.	Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Recommendations for the interpretation and application of the personal information and electronic documents act (S.C.2000, c.5) in the health research context, 2001. (accessed 18 Dec 2002.)
8.	Willison DJ, Keshavjee K, Nair K, Holbrook AM, Goldsmith CH, Troyan S. Use of electronic medical records in family physicians' offices for research: privacy concerns of patients and providers. Working paper, 2001. (accessed 18 Dec 2002.)
9.	Upshur RE, Morin B, Goel V. The privacy paradox: laying Orwell's ghost to rest. CMAJ 2001; 165: 307-309[Free Full Text].
10.	Mandl KD, Szolovits P, Kohane IS, Markwell D, MacDonald R. Public standards and patients' control: how to keep electronic medical records accessible but private. BMJ 2001; 322: 283-287[Free Full Text].

(Accepted 27 November 2002)