Suppr超能文献

研究的社会许可:为何care.data陷入困境。

The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble.

作者信息

Carter Pam, Laurie Graeme T, Dixon-Woods Mary

机构信息

Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

Department of Law, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2015 May;41(5):404-9. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102374. Epub 2015 Jan 23.

Abstract

In this article we draw on the concept of a social licence to explain public concern at the introduction of care.data, a recent English initiative designed to extract data from primary care medical records for commissioning and other purposes, including research. The concept of a social licence describes how the expectations of society regarding some activities may go beyond compliance with the requirements of formal regulation; those who do not fulfil the conditions for the social licence (even if formally compliant) may experience ongoing challenge and contestation. Previous work suggests that people's cooperation with specific research studies depends on their perceptions that their participation is voluntary and is governed by values of reciprocity, non-exploitation and service of the public good. When these conditions are not seen to obtain, threats to the social licence for research may emerge. We propose that care.data failed to adequately secure a social licence because of: (i) defects in the warrants of trust provided for care.data, (ii) the implied rupture in the traditional role, expectations and duties of general practitioners, and (iii) uncertainty about the status of care.data as a public good. The concept of a social licence may be useful in explaining the specifics of care.data, and also in reinforcing the more general lesson for policy-makers that legal authority does not necessarily command social legitimacy.

摘要

在本文中,我们运用社会许可的概念来解释公众对“护理数据”(Care.data)引入的担忧。“护理数据”是英国最近发起的一项倡议,旨在从基层医疗记录中提取数据用于医疗委托及其他目的,包括研究。社会许可的概念描述了社会对某些活动的期望如何可能超出遵守正式监管要求的范畴;那些未满足社会许可条件的人(即使在形式上合规)可能会面临持续的质疑和争议。先前的研究表明,人们对特定研究的合作取决于他们认为自己的参与是自愿的,并且受互惠、不剥削和服务公共利益等价值观的支配。当这些条件未被视为得到满足时,研究的社会许可可能会受到威胁。我们认为,“护理数据”未能充分获得社会许可,原因如下:(i)为“护理数据”提供的信任依据存在缺陷;(ii)全科医生的传统角色、期望和职责出现了隐含的断裂;(iii)“护理数据”作为公共利益的地位存在不确定性。社会许可的概念可能有助于解释“护理数据”的具体情况,也有助于向政策制定者强化一个更普遍的教训,即法律权威不一定能赢得社会合法性。

相似文献

1
The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble.研究的社会许可:为何care.data陷入困境。
J Med Ethics. 2015 May;41(5):404-9. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102374. Epub 2015 Jan 23.
4
Co-creating social licence for sharing health and care data.共同创建共享健康和医疗数据的社会许可。
Int J Med Inform. 2021 May;149:104439. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104439. Epub 2021 Mar 15.
7
[The origin of informed consent].[知情同意的起源]
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27.
10
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

3
Artificial Intelligence in Digital Self-Diagnosis Tools: A Narrative Overview of Reviews.数字自我诊断工具中的人工智能:综述的叙述性概述
Mayo Clin Proc Digit Health. 2025 Jun 10;3(3):100242. doi: 10.1016/j.mcpdig.2025.100242. eCollection 2025 Sep.
4
Linking digital footprint data into longitudinal population studies.将数字足迹数据纳入纵向人群研究。
Int J Popul Data Sci. 2025 Jun 3;10(1):2946. doi: 10.23889/ijpds.v10i1.2946. eCollection 2025.
7
Using data linkage for mental health research in Australia.利用数据链接开展澳大利亚的心理健康研究。
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2025 Jul;59(7):588-601. doi: 10.1177/00048674251333574. Epub 2025 May 13.

本文引用的文献

1
Trust in the time of markets: protecting patient information.市场时代的信任:保护患者信息。
Lancet. 2014 May 3;383(9928):1523-4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60727-3.
5
UK push to open up patients' data.英国推动开放患者数据。
Nature. 2013 Oct 17;502(7471):283. doi: 10.1038/502283a.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验