title: Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: what is the opinion of the Canadian public?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study sought to determine public opinion on alternatives to project-specific consent for use of their personal information for health research.
  
  
  METHODS
  The authors conducted a fixed-response random-digit dialed telephone survey of 1,230 adults across Canada.
  
  
  METHODS
  We measured attitudes toward privacy and health research; trust in different institutions to keep information confidential; and consent choice for research use of one's own health information involving medical record review, automated abstraction of information from the electronic medical record, and linking education or income with health data.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Support was strong for both health research and privacy protection. Studying communicable diseases and quality of health care had greatest support (85% to 89%). Trust was highest for data institutes, university researchers, hospitals, and disease foundations (78% to 80%). Four percent of respondents thought information from their paper medical record should not be used at all for research, 32% thought permission should be obtained for each use, 29% supported broad consent, 24% supported notification and opt out, and 11% felt no need for notification or consent. Opinions were more polarized for automated abstraction of data from the electronic medical record. Respondents were more willing to link education with health data than income.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Most of the public supported alternatives to study-specific consent, but few supported use without any notification or consent. Consent choices for research use of one's health information should be documented in the medical record. The challenge remains how best to elicit those choices and ensure that they are up-to-date.
authors: Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, St. Joseph's Healthcare, 105 Main Street East, P1, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. willison@mcmaster.ca
authors: Donald J
authors: DJ
authors: Willison
authors: Lisa
authors: L
authors: Schwartz
authors: Julia
authors: J
authors: Abelson
authors: Cathy
authors: C
authors: Charles
authors: Marilyn
authors: M
authors: Swinton
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Northrup
authors: Lehana
authors: L
authors: Thabane
mesh_terms: D022126:Access to Information; D001294:Attitude to Health; D035843:Biomedical Research; D002170:Canada; D003219:Confidentiality; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D006801:Humans; D008499:Medical Records; D016347:Medical Records Systems, Computerized; D011639:Public Opinion; D035502:Trust
references: J Med Ethics. 2004 Feb;30(1):104-9
references: 14872086
references: Health Law Rev. 2005;13(2-3):107-13
references: 16459423
references: BMC Med Ethics. 2006 May 23;7:E6
references: 16716233
references: J Law Med Ethics. 2003 Fall;31(3):429-33
references: 14626550
references: Hosp Q. 2002 Summer;5(4):40-5, 2
references: 12357571
references: JAMA. 2005 Sep 21;294(11):1380-4
references: 16174697
references: BMJ. 2003 Feb 15;326(7385):373
references: 12586673
references: N Engl J Med. 2004 Apr 1;350(14):1414-21
references: 15070791
references: BMJ. 2000 Oct 28;321(7268):1031-2
references: 11053151
references: Ann Intern Med. 2006 May 2;144(9):685-8
references: 16670138
references: BMC Med Ethics. 2003 Jan 03;4:E1
references: 12513704
references: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2001;1:1
references: 11331535
references: BMJ. 2001 Mar 24;322(7288):730
references: 11264225
references: BMJ. 2006 May 6;332(7549):1068-72
references: 16648132
references: Int J Med Inform. 2006 Jul;75(7):530-41
references: 16198142
references: Soc Sci Med. 2007 Jan;64(1):223-35
references: 17045717
references: J Med Ethics. 2008 Apr;34(4):308-14
references: 18375687
references: BMJ. 2006 Mar 4;332(7540):544-7
references: 16513715
references: J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004 Jan;9(1):22-7
references: 15006236
references: BMJ. 2006 Jul 29;333(7561):255-8
references: 16873867