Institute for Community Medicine, Section Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Ellernholzstr. 1-2, 17487, Greifswald, Germany.
Core Unit Data Integration Center, University Medicine Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Straße 49a, 17489, Greifswald, Germany.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022 Jul 15;22(1):184. doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-01922-6.
Data collected during routine health care and ensuing analytical results bear the potential to provide valuable information to improve the overall health care of patients. However, little is known about how patients prefer to be informed about the possible usage of their routine data and/or biosamples for research purposes before reaching a consent decision. Specifically, we investigated the setting, the timing and the responsible staff for the information and consent process.
We performed a quasi-randomized controlled trial and compared the method by which patients were informed either in the patient admission area following patient admission by the same staff member (Group A) or in a separate room by another staff member (Group B). The consent decision was hypothetical in nature. Additionally, we evaluated if there was the need for additional time after the information session and before taking the consent decision. Data were collected during a structured interview based on questionnaires where participants reflected on the information and consent process they went through.
Questionnaire data were obtained from 157 participants in Group A and 106 participants in Group B. Overall, participants in both groups were satisfied with their experienced process and with the way information was provided. They reported that their (hypothetical) consent decision was freely made. Approximately half of the interested participants in Group B did not show up in the separate room, while all interested participants in Group A could be informed about the secondary use of their routine data and left-over samples. No participants, except for one in Group B, wanted to take extra time for their consent decision. The hypothetical consent rate for both routine data and left-over samples was very high in both groups.
The willingness to support medical research by allowing the use of routine data and left-over samples seems to be widespread among patients. Information concerning this secondary data use may be given by trained administrative staff immediately following patient admission. Patients mainly prefer making a consent decision directly after information is provided and discussed. Furthermore, less patients are informed when the process is organized in a separate room.
在常规医疗保健过程中收集的数据和随之而来的分析结果有可能提供有价值的信息,以改善患者的整体医疗保健。然而,人们对患者在做出同意决定之前,对于其常规数据和/或生物样本可能被用于研究目的的信息和同意过程的偏好知之甚少。具体而言,我们研究了信息和同意过程的设置、时间和负责人员。
我们进行了一项准随机对照试验,比较了以下两种告知患者的方法:在患者入院后由同一名工作人员在患者入院区(A 组)或由另一名工作人员在单独的房间内(B 组)告知。同意决定是假设性的。此外,我们还评估了在信息会议结束后和做出同意决定之前是否需要额外的时间。数据是通过基于问卷的结构化访谈收集的,参与者在问卷中对他们所经历的信息和同意过程进行了反思。
A 组有 157 名参与者和 B 组有 106 名参与者完成了问卷。总体而言,两组参与者对他们所经历的过程和信息提供方式都感到满意。他们报告说,他们的(假设性)同意决定是自由做出的。B 组约有一半感兴趣的参与者没有出现在单独的房间,而 A 组所有感兴趣的参与者都可以被告知其常规数据和剩余样本的二次使用情况。除了 B 组的一名参与者外,没有其他参与者希望为他们的同意决定额外留出时间。两组参与者对常规数据和剩余样本的同意率都非常高。
允许使用常规数据和剩余样本进行医学研究的意愿似乎在患者中广泛存在。有关这种二次数据使用的信息可以在患者入院后立即由经过培训的行政人员提供。患者主要希望在提供和讨论信息后直接做出同意决定。此外,当流程在单独的房间中组织时,通知的患者较少。