Do Physicians Have a Duty to Support Secondary Use of Clinical Data in Biomedical Research? An Inquiry into the Professional Ethics of Physicians.

Secondary use of clinical data in research or learning activities (SeConts) has the potential to improve patient care and biomedical knowledge. Given this potential, the ethical question arises whether physicians have a professional duty to support SeConts. To investigate this question, we analyze prominent international declarations on physicians' professional ethics to determine whether they include duties that can be considered as good reasons for a physicians' professional duty to support SeConts. Next, we examine these documents to identify professional duties that might conflict with a potential duty of physicians to support SeConts.

Physicians' attitudes towards secondary use of clinical data for biomedical research purposes in Germany. Results of a quantitative survey.

BACKGROUND: For biomedical data-driven research purposes, secondary use of clinical data carries great but largely untapped potential. Physicians' attitudes and their needs towards secondary data use are essential to inform its practical and ethically sound implementation but are currently understudied. OBJECTIVE: Therefore, the objectives of the study are to assess physicians' (i) general attitudes and concerns, (ii) willingness to adapt workflows and to make data available for secondary use, (iii) group-specific conditions toward implementation of secondary use and associated concerns of physician-scientists and purely clinical physicians. METHODS: We developed an online survey based on a literature review and an expert interview study. Physicians in private practice and at two large German university hospitals were surveyed from May 2021 until January 2022. RESULTS: In total, 446 physicians participated in the survey. 96% [380/397] of all physicians reported a positive attitude towards secondary use; 87% [31/397] are in-principle willing to support secondary use of clinical data along with a small proportion of physicians with fundamental reservations. Secondly, the most important conditions for adapting workflows were funding of additional time and effort for research-adequate documentation (71% [286/390]) and the most important condition for providing patients' clinical data was reliable protection of patients' privacy (67% [254/382]). Thirdly, physician-scientists were more likely than purely clinical physicians to request additional funding for research-adequate documentation as a precondition for support (83% vs 69%, P = .002) and the privilege to conduct research with their own patients' clinical data before other researchers are allowed to (43% vs 11%, P < .001); while purely clinical physicians more frequently require reliable protection of patient privacy (76% vs 62%, P = .007) and monetary compensation (45% vs 25%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Since this study presents high in-principle willingness of physicians to support secondary use along with little general concerns, it seems essential to address physicians' group-specific conditions toward secondary use in order to gain their support.

Patients' Willingness to Provide Their Clinical Data for Research Purposes and Acceptance of Different Consent Models: Findings From a Representative Survey of Patients With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Secondary use of clinical data for biomedical research purposes holds great potential for various types of noninterventional, data-driven studies. Patients' willingness to support research with their clinical data is a crucial prerequisite for research progress. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to learn about patients' attitudes and expectations regarding secondary use of their clinical data. In a next step, our results can inform the development of an appropriate governance framework for secondary use of clinical data for research purposes. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to assess the willingness of patients with cancer to provide their clinical data for biomedical research purposes, considering different conditions of data sharing and consent models. The Cancer Registry of the German federal state of Baden-Württemberg recruited a proportionally stratified random sample of patients with cancer and survivors of cancer based on a full census. RESULTS: In total, 838 participants completed the survey. Approximately all participants (810/838, 96.7%) showed general willingness to make clinical data available for biomedical research purposes; however, they expected certain requirements to be met, such as comparable data protection standards for data use abroad and the possibility to renew consent at regular time intervals. Most participants (620/838, 73.9%) supported data use also by researchers in commercial companies. More than half of the participants (503/838, 60%) were willing to give up control over clinical data in favor of research benefits. Most participants expressed acceptance of the broad consent model (494/838, 58.9%), followed by data use by default (with the option to opt out at any time; 419/838, 50%); specific consent for every study showed the lowest acceptance rate (327/838, 39%). Patients expected physicians to share their data (763/838, 91.1%) and their fellow patients to support secondary use with their clinical data (679/838, 81%). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients' general willingness to make their clinical data available for biomedical research purposes is very high, the willingness of a substantial proportion of patients depends on additional requirements. Taking these perspectives into account is essential for designing trustworthy governance of clinical data reuse and sharing. The willingness to accept the loss of control over clinical data to enhance the benefits of research should be given special consideration.

Secondary Use of Clinical Data in Data-Gathering, Non-Interventional Research or Learning Activities: Definition, Types, and a Framework for Risk Assessment.

BACKGROUND: The secondary use of clinical data in data-gathering, non-interventional research or learning activities (SeConts) has great potential for scientific progress and health care improvement. At the same time, it poses relevant risks for the privacy and informational self-determination of patients whose data are used. OBJECTIVE: Since the current literature lacks a tailored framework for risk assessment in SeConts as well as a clarification of the concept and practical scope of SeConts, we aim to fill this gap. METHODS: In this study, we analyze each element of the concept of SeConts to provide a synthetic definition, investigate the practical relevance and scope of SeConts through a literature review, and operationalize the widespread definition of risk (as a harmful event of a certain magnitude that occurs with a certain probability) to conduct a tailored analysis of privacy risk factors typically implied in SeConts. RESULTS: We offer a conceptual clarification and definition of SeConts and provide a list of types of research and learning activities that can be subsumed under the definition of SeConts. We also offer a proposal for the classification of SeConts types into the categories non-interventional (observational) clinical research, quality control and improvement, or public health research. In addition, we provide a list of risk factors that determine the probability or magnitude of harm implied in SeConts. The risk factors provide a framework for assessing the privacy-related risks for patients implied in SeConts. We illustrate the use of risk assessment by applying it to a concrete example. CONCLUSIONS: In the future, research ethics committees and data use and access committees will be able to rely on and apply the framework offered here when reviewing projects of secondary use of clinical data for learning and research purposes.