BMJ  2006;332:1068-1072 (6 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.38805.473738.7C (published 28 April 2006)

Research

National survey of British public's views on use of identifiable medical data by the National Cancer Registry

Geraldine Barrett, lecturer in health studies1, Jackie A Cassell, honorary senior clinical research fellow2, Janet L Peacock, professor of health statistics1, Michel P Coleman, professor of epidemiology and vital statistics3

1 School of Health Sciences and Social Care, Brunel University, Middlesex TW7 5DU, 2 Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Royal Free and University College Medical School, University College London, 3 Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Correspondence to: G Barrett geraldine.barrett{at}brunel.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To describe the views of the British public on the use of personal medical data by the National Cancer Registry without individual consent, and to assess the relative importance attached by the public to personal privacy in relation to public health uses of identifiable health data.

Design Cross sectional, face to face interview survey.

Setting England, Wales, and Scotland.

Participants 2872 respondents, 97% of those who took part in the Office for National Statistics' omnibus survey, a national multistage probability sample, in March and April 2005 (response rates 62% and 69%, respectively).

Results 72% (95% confidence interval 70% to 74%) of all respondents did not consider any of the following to be an invasion of their privacy by the National Cancer Registry: inclusion of postcode, inclusion of name and address, and the receipt of a letter inviting them to a research study on the basis of inclusion in the registry. Only 2% (2% to 3%) of the sample considered all of these to amount to an invasion of privacy. Logistic regression analysis showed that the proportions not concerned about invasion of privacy varied significantly by country, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and housing tenure, although in all subgroups examined most respondents had no concerns. 81% (79% to 83%) of all respondents said that they would support a law making cancer registration statutory.

Conclusions Most of the British public considers the confidential use of personal, identifiable patient information by the National Cancer Registry for the purposes of public health research and surveillance not to be an invasion of privacy.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Governance of research that uses identifiable personal data
Robert Souhami
BMJ 2006 333: 315-316. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Overcoming barriers to recruitment in health research
Jenny Hewison and Andy Haines
BMJ 2006 333: 300-302. [Full Text] [PDF]

Australian public's views on privacy and health research
David C Whiteman, Cathy Clutton, and David Hill
BMJ 2006 332: 1274. [Extract] [Full Text]

Using personal health information in medical research
Tom Walley
BMJ 2006 332: 130-131. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

A feasibility study of signed consent for the collection of patient identifiable information for a national paediatric clinical audit database
Patricia A McKinney, Samantha Jones, Roger Parslow, Nicola Davey, Mark Darowski, Bill Chaudhry, Charles Stack, Gareth Parry, Elizabeth S Draper for the PICANet Consent Study Group
BMJ 2005 330: 877-879. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Data protection, informed consent, and research
Julian Peto, Olivia Fletcher, and Clare Gilham
BMJ 2004 328: 1029-1030. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Kavanagh, P L, Adams, W G, Wang, C J (2009). Quality indicators and quality assessment in child health. Arch. Dis. Child. 94: 458-463 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Noble, S., Donovan, J., Turner, E., Metcalfe, C., Lane, A., Rowlands, M.-A., Neal, D., Hamdy, F., Ben-Shlomo, Y., Martin, R. (2009). Feasibility and cost of obtaining informed consent for essential review of medical records in large-scale health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy 14: 77-81 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Baird, W, Jackson, R, Ford, H, Evangelou, N, Busby, M, Bull, P, Zajicek, J (2009). Holding personal information in a disease-specific register: the perspectives of people with multiple sclerosis and professionals on consent and access. J. Med. Ethics 35: 92-96 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Jackson, C., Crossland, L., Dennis, M., Wardlaw, J., Sudlow, C. (2008). Assessing the impact of the requirement for explicit consent in a hospital-based stroke study. QJM 101: 281-289 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Armitage, J., Souhami, R., Friedman, L., Hilbrich, L., Holland, J., Muhlbaier, L. H., Shannon, J., Van Nie, A. (2008). The impact of privacy and confidentiality laws on the conduct of clinical trials. Clin Trials 5: 70-74 [Abstract]  
  • Metcalfe, C, Martin, R M, Noble, S, Lane, J A, Hamdy, F C, Neal, D E, Donovan, J L (2008). Low risk research using routinely collected identifiable health information without informed consent: encounters with the Patient Information Advisory Group. J. Med. Ethics 34: 37-40 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Willison, D. J., Schwartz, L., Abelson, J., Charles, C., Swinton, M., Northrup, D., Thabane, L. (2007). Alternatives to Project-specific Consent for Access to Personal Information for Health Research: What Is the Opinion of the Canadian Public?. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 14: 706-712 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Junghans, C., Jones, M. (2007). Consent bias in research: how to avoid it. Heart 93: 1024-1025 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Coleman, M. P (2007). Commentary: Is epidemiology really dead, anyway? * A look back at Kenneth Rothman's 'The rise and fall of epidemiology, 1950 2000 AD'. Int J Epidemiol 36: 719-723 [Full text]  
  • Kendrick, D., Lyons, R., Christie, N., Towner, E., Benger, J., Groom, L., Coffey, F., Miller, P., Murphy, R., for The UK Burden of Injury Study Group, (2007). Recruiting participants for injury studies in emergency departments. Inj. Prev. 13: 75-77 [Full text]  
  • Souhami, R. (2006). Governance of research that uses identifiable personal data. BMJ 333: 315-316 [Full text]  
  • Hewison, J., Haines, A. (2006). Overcoming barriers to recruitment in health research.. BMJ 333: 300-302 [Full text]  
  • Whiteman, D. C, Clutton, C., Hill, D. (2006). Australian public's views on privacy and health research.. BMJ 332: 1274-1274 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Needed information in the field of research
Ada Majd
bmj.com, 6 May 2006 [Full text]
Re: Needed information in the field of research
susanne mccabe
bmj.com, 8 May 2006 [Full text]
Australian public's views on privacy and health research
David C. Whiteman, et al.
bmj.com, 17 May 2006 [Full text]
Society needs to choose
John Jenkins
bmj.com, 17 May 2006 [Full text]
Protecting the work of UK Cancer Registries
David Forman, et al.
bmj.com, 20 May 2006 [Full text]
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ