Choi Hyo Joung, Lee Min Joung, Choi Chang-Min, Lee JaeHo, Shin Soo-Yong, Lyu Yungman, Park Yu Rang, Yoo Soyoung
Office of Clinical Research Information, Asan Institute of Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Pulmonology and Critical Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
PeerJ. 2015 Dec 17;3:e1506. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1506. eCollection 2015.
Background. The objective of this study is to propose the four conditions for the roles of honest brokers through a review of literature published by ten institutions that are successfully utilizing honest brokers. Furthermore, the study aims to examine whether the Asan Medical Center's (AMC) honest brokers satisfy the four conditions, and examine the need to enhance their roles. Methods. We analyzed the roles, tasks, and types of honest brokers at 10 organizations by reviewing the literature. We also established a Task Force (TF) in our institution for setting the roles and processes of the honest broker system and the honest brokers. The findings of the literature search were compared with the existing systems at AMC-which introduced the honest broker system for the first time in Korea. Results. Only one organization employed an honest broker for validating anonymized clinical data and monitoring the anonymity verifications of the honest broker system. Six organizations complied with HIPAA privacy regulations, while four organizations did not disclose compliance. By comparing functions with those of the AMC, the following four main characteristics of honest brokers were determined: (1) de-identification of clinical data; (2) independence; (3) checking that the data are used only for purposes approved by the IRB; and (4) provision of de-identified data to researchers. These roles were then compared with those of honest brokers at the AMC. Discussion. First, guidelines that regulate the definitions, purposes, roles, and requirements for honest brokers are needed, since there are no currently existing regulations. Second, Korean clinical research institutions and national regulatory departments need to reach a consensus on a Korean version of Limited Data Sets (LDS), since there are no lists that describe the use of personal identification information. Lastly, satisfaction surveys on honest brokers by researchers are necessary to improve the quality of honest brokers.
背景。本研究的目的是通过回顾十家成功运用诚实经纪人的机构发表的文献,提出诚实经纪人角色的四个条件。此外,该研究旨在考察峨山医院(AMC)的诚实经纪人是否满足这四个条件,并探讨加强其作用的必要性。方法。我们通过回顾文献分析了10个组织中诚实经纪人的角色、任务和类型。我们还在本机构成立了一个特别工作组(TF),以确定诚实经纪人系统和诚实经纪人的角色及流程。将文献检索的结果与韩国首次引入诚实经纪人系统的AMC的现有系统进行了比较。结果。只有一个组织雇佣诚实经纪人来验证匿名临床数据并监督诚实经纪人系统的匿名验证情况。六个组织遵守了《健康保险流通与责任法案》(HIPAA)隐私法规,而四个组织未披露合规情况。通过将功能与AMC的功能进行比较,确定了诚实经纪人的以下四个主要特征:(1)临床数据去识别化;(2)独立性;(3)检查数据仅用于机构审查委员会(IRB)批准的目的;(4)向研究人员提供去识别化数据。然后将这些角色与AMC的诚实经纪人的角色进行了比较。讨论。首先,由于目前没有相关规定,需要制定规范诚实经纪人定义、目的、角色和要求的指南。其次,由于没有描述个人身份信息使用情况的清单,韩国临床研究机构和国家监管部门需要就韩国版的有限数据集(LDS)达成共识。最后,为了提高诚实经纪人的质量,有必要开展研究人员对诚实经纪人的满意度调查。