Consent, data sharing and GDPR Margaret Rees Reader

Consent, data sharing and GDPR Margaret Rees Reader

Consent, data sharing and GDPR Margaret Rees Reader Emeritus in Reproductive Medicine, University of Oxford Visiting Professor, University of Glasgow, Karolinska Institute and University of Turku Adjunct Associate ProfessorRobert Wood Johnson Medical School, at Rutgers University. Editor in Chief Maturitas Editor in Chief Case Reports in Womens Health Conflict of interest: none declared Guide for authors The author should ensure that the work described has been carried out in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans; Uniform Requirements for manuscripts submitted to Biomedical journals. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights

of human subjects must always be observed. Informed consent and patient details Case reports and case series require informed consent, which should be documented in the paper Appropriate consents, permissions and releases must be obtained where an author wishes to include case details or other personal information or images of patients and any other individuals in an Elsevier publication. Written consents must be retained by the author but copies should not be provided to the journal. Only if specifically requested by the journal in exceptional circumstances (for example if a legal issue arises) the author must provide copies of the consents or evidence that such consents have been obtained Unless you have written permission from the patient (or, where applicable,

the next of kin), the personal details of any patient included in any part of the article and in any supplementary materials (including all illustrations and videos) must be removed before submission. Research in human beings The Nuremberg Doctors Trial 1946 Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male started in 1932-1972 Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Inoculation Study in Guatemala 1946-8 Alder Hey Affair 1999 ( storage of human tissue) Nuremberg Doctors trial

Medical experiments were undertaken upon concentration camp inmates and A) High-Altitude Experiments other living human subjects, without their consent, in the course of which B) Freezing Experiments experiments the defendants committed the murders, brutalities, cruelties, C) Malaria Experiments tortures, atrocities, and inhuman acts D) Lost (Mustard) Gasother Experiments E) Sulfanilamide Experiments F)

Muscle, Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation 23 Bone, physicians and and scientists Experiments G) Sea-Water Crimes against Experiments humanity H) Epidemic Jaundice Experiments I) Sterilization Experiments J) Spotted Fever (Fleckfieber) Experiments K) Experiments with Poison L) Incendiary Bomb Experiments Nuremberg trial

During the Doctors Trial, American medical expert Dr. Leo Alexander points to scars on the leg of Ravensbrck concentration camp survivor Jadwiga Dzido. The experiments, including injections of highly potent bacteria December 20, 1946. Nuremberg code 1947

Required is the voluntary, well-informed, understanding consent of the human subject in a full legal capacity. The experiment should aim at positive results for society that cannot be procured in some other way. It should be based on previous knowledge (e.g., an expectation derived from animal experiments) that justifies the experiment. The experiment should be set up in a way that avoids unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injuries. It should not be conducted when there is any reason to believe that it implies a risk of death or disabling injury. The risks of the experiment should be in proportion to (that is, not exceed) the expected

humanitarian benefits. Preparations and facilities must be provided that adequately protect the subjects against the experiments risks. The staff who conduct or take part in the experiment must be fully trained and scientifically qualified. The human subjects must be free to immediately quit the experiment at any point when they feel physically or mentally unable to go on. Likewise, the medical staff must stop the experiment at any point when they observe that continuation would be dangerous. World Medical Association Formed in 1945 Represents physicians world wide Non political Non governmental Addresses non clinical medical issues such as ethics and education Declaration of Helsinki First

written in 1964 it is a statement of ethical principles to provide guidance to physicians and other participants in medical research involving human subjects Both clinical trials and non-therapeutic research Most recently updated version 7 in 2013 Declaration of Helsinki: key elements Protection of patient rights Informed consent Independent approval Scientific/medical basis Appropriate risk benefit Subject well being takes precedence over other considerations Declaration of Helsinki: version 7 http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/ ( 37

paragraphs) Paragraph 26 (applicable to studies outside medical research) In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, post-study provisions and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject must be informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. Special attention should be given to the specific information needs of individual potential subjects as well as to the methods used to deliver the information. After ensuring that the potential subject has understood the information, the physician or another appropriately qualified individual must then seek the potential subjects freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed. All medical research subjects should be given the option of being informed

about the general outcome and results of the study. Safe guarding participants: Tuskegee Syphilis experiments 1932, the Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began a study to record the natural history of syphilis in hopes of justifying treatment programs for blacks. It was called the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male." The study initially involved 600 black men 399 with syphilis, 201 who did not have the disease. The study was conducted without the benefit of patients' informed consent. Researchers told the men they were being treated for "bad blood, The study lasted 40 years. Even when penicillin became the drug of choice for syphilis in 1947, researchers did not offer it to the subjects. 1972 First news articles condemn studies. Compensation fund set up after out of court settlement 1997 President Clinton apologizes on behalf of the Nation.

http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm Safe guarding participants: the 1946-1948 U.S. Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Inoculation Study in Guatemala The study was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Health to the Pan American

Sanitary Bureau (which became the Pan American Health Organization) to several Guatemalan government ministries. Dr Cutler involved. The study had never been published. The initial intent of the study was to look for new ways to prevent STDs, including gonorrhea, chancroid, and syphilis. The first experiments involved infecting female commercial sex workers with gonorrhea or syphilis, and then allowing them to have unprotected sex with soldiers or prison inmates. When few of these men became infected, the research approach changed to direct inoculation of soldiers, prisoners, and mental hospital patients. Gonorrhea was transmitted by inoculations into the urethra; chancroid by skin injection; and syphilis by a variety of means including skin injection and exposing the foreskin of the penis to infectious material. About 1,500 study subjects were involved. Participants were not informed of the purpose of the study and did not provide consent. The researchers indicated that they treated the vast majority of persons who contracted gonorrhea and chancroid, and most who contracted syphilis. However, the research suggests that some of the persons infected with syphilis were prescribed only partial treatment or not treated at all. At least one patient died during the experiments, although it is not clear whether the death was from the experiments or from an underlying medical problem. There are inadequate records to determine if the commercial sex workers were treated. 2010, the U.S. formally apologized to Guatemala for conducting these experiments. http://www.hhs.gov/1946inoculationstudy/factsheet.html Data sharing: why and how Why:

best use of research findings, supported by funders, government and publishers/ editors How: consent (GDPR), data storage, type of data, assessment of sharers, publication When inappropriate: lack of consent ( old studies cannot necessarily reconsent all), personal data, case reports Why data sharing

To maximise the research opportunities that such a diversity, richness and quantity of data provides. To encourage informed use beyond the originating research teams. Enabling new research questions to be answered in existing data Promoting collaboration between different research teams and diverse disciplines Sharing of knowledge about best methods for data collection, linkage and analysis Independently verifying established research findings Reducing data fabrication and falsification? Development and testing of new research methods Using to best effect the gift of data made by study participants Sharing Clinical Trial Data: A Requirement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors http://icmje.org/news-and-editorials/data_sharing_june_2017.pdf

ICMJE will require the following as conditions of consideration for publication of a clinical trial report in our member journals: 1. As of 1 July 2018 manuscripts submitted to ICMJE journals that report the results of clinical trials must contain a data sharing statement as described below. 2. Clinical trials that begin enrolling participants on or after 1 January 2019 must include a data sharing plan in the trial's registration Data sharing statements must indicate the following: whether individual deidentified participant data (including data dictionaries) will be shared; what data in particular will be shared; whether additional, related documents will be available (e.g., study protocol, statistical analysis plan, etc.); when the data will become available and for how long; by what access criteria data will be shared (including with whom, for what types of analyses, and by what mechanism). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

Came into force 25 May 2018 and is enforceable in the UK, Data Protection Act 2018 Has been effective since 24 May 2016 GDPR is concerned with working practices in the way that personal data is handled and used, including how it is shared. Most of the Articles concern corporations and organisations and the way in which they handle personal data. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regu lation-gdpr/whats-new/ Cornock M Editorial General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and implications for research Maturitas 2018

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standardslegislation/data-protection-and-information-governance/gdpr-guidance/ GDPR and research Changes to consent New rights for individuals Data sharing Protection of children Data breaches and reporting The penalties are very severe and any breach has to be reported in a very strict timeframe. However, it needs to be remembered that these are aimed primarily at organisations and not individuals. GDPR and consent

Cornock M Editorial General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and implications for research Maturitas 2018 With regard to consent there is a requirement that it be demonstrated that the person has consented to the use of their data, that consent is obtained in a way that is understandable and accessible to the subject, and that there is an opportunity for the person to withdraw from the study at any time: It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent (Article 7). Some of the rights that individuals will have include the right to be forgotten. This means to be able to request, in certain conditions, the compete erasure of their data. This might be taken to mean that data already coded or being reported on will have to be removed. However, this is not necessarily so if the data was lawfully obtained and is still necessary for the purpose for which it was obtained (Article 17): which underlies the need to ensure that consent is adequate for the

purpose of the research. GDPR and consent There are specific rules with regard to transferring data outside of the European Union (EU) (Chapter V). These rules exist to ensure that an individuals rights are not reduced by the laws in the country receiving the data. It does not mean that data cannot be shared outside the EU, only that certain procedures have to be out in place. There is also a requirement (Article 20) that data is portable, meaning that the individual has a right to receive it in a way that can be read by them. This may mean that researchers have to reconsider how they store subject data. With regard to children, the provisions (Article 8) relate to ensuring that they understand any information provided to them. Data storage

Anonymisation/ deidentification/ reidentification Data formatting ie useable in future years Who owns the data/ data holder Data controller/ data processor Repositories by whom and where: institution, national, publishers Access/ safeguarding

Duration of data storage Consistent with the law, regulation and recognised good practice and data protection legislation Consistent with GDPR ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com (CSDR) A data-sharing initiative involving academic research funders and pharmaceutical companies Researchers seeking data can search the website to view the metadata of the listed trials.

To request data, a researcher completes a data access application form. An independent review panel considers data access requests to ensure that the research plan is viable and the team requesting the data are able to handle the data in a responsible manner. The panel then decides whether access should be granted to the dataset(s) requested. A coordinator supports both the data generator and the requestor to share and gain access to the data. Data sharing and publication Elsevier core guidance This journal encourages and enables you to share data that supports your research publication where appropriate, and enables you to interlink the data with your published articles. Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. To facilitate reproducibility and data reuse, this journal also encourages you to share your software, code, models, algorithms, protocols, methods and other useful materials related to the project. Below are a number of ways in which you can associate data with your article or make a statement about the availability of your data when submitting your manuscript. If you are sharing data in one of these ways, you are encouraged to cite the data in your manuscript and

reference list. Data statement To foster transparency, we encourage you to state the availability of your data in your submission. This may be a requirement of your funding body or institution. If your data is unavailable to access or unsuitable to post, you will have the opportunity to indicate why during the submission process, for example by stating that the research data is confidential. The statement will appear with your published article on ScienceDirect. Allows for studies where participants did not consent to data sharing Allows for data access after assessment of suitability of the researchers to access Data sharing: additional

information Upon publication, I agree to share appropriately anonymized data files from this research with other qualified professionals on request in order to confirm the substantive conclusions of the research, in fulfilment of APA Ethics Code Standard 8.14a. Yes No If NO, please explain which of the above you cannot agree to and why (e.g. proprietary data, impossible to anonymize) FREE TEXT BOX HERE American Psychological Association

8.14 Sharing Research Data for Verification (a) After research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release. This does not preclude psychologists from requiring that such individuals or groups be responsible for costs associated with the provision of such information. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60096-2. Freedom of information: can researchers still promise control of participants data? A UK Tribunal has concluded by a 2:1 majority that certain PACE trial data into chronic fatigue syndrome should be disclosed to a member of the public

under the Freedom of Information Act. But participants in the trial never consented to this (recruited 2005-8). BMJ 2016; 354 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5053 (Published 21 September 2016) http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/smd/181216.html Pressure grows on Lancet to review flawed PACE trial Over a hundred academics, patient groups, lawyers, and politicians have now signed an open letter to the Lancet calling on the journal to commission an independent reanalysis of the data from the PACE trial.. BMJ 2018; 362 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3621 (Published 22 August 2018) PACE trial: 2016 Queen Mary University of London said this month that it has released the

data from the PACE trial (a randomised evaluation of pacing, graded activity, cognitive behaviour therapy, and specialised medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome) to a patient who had requested it under the Freedom of Information Act. The university had long battled against the request, citing concern that the participants could be identified if the data were released. Frances Rawle, head of corporate governance and policy at the Medical Research Council, says that it will now be necessary to rethink how consent forms for future trials are drafted if it is no longer possible to assure participants that data will not be shared. People who run trials have to say what will happen to the data they collect, so well have to look very carefully at the wording of consent forms, she says. As things stand they are no longer consistent with the Freedom of Information Act. If people have to be told that data may be shared, even if only after anonymisation, it could affect recruitment for trials. Expression of Concern The PLOS ONE Editors Published: May 2, 2017https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177037

Statement from the authors We disagree with the Expression of Concern about our health economic paper that PLOS ONE has issued and do not accept that it is justified. We believe that data should be made available and have shared data from the PACE trial with other researchers previously, in line with our data sharing policy. This is consistent with the data sharing policies of Queen Mary University of London, and the Medical Research Council, which funded the trial. The policy allows for the sharing of data with other researchers, so long as safeguards are agreed regarding confidentiality of the data and consent as specified by the Research Ethics Committee (REC). The PACE trial REC advised that public release, even of anonymised data, is not appropriate. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e40808. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040808. Epub 2012 Aug 1. Publishing Medical Case Reports and data sharing

Data sharing problematic as would give access to source data with information from people who may not have consented eg healthcare professionals Risk of identifiable data being made publicly available Removal of identifiers in text, images http://publicationethics.org/files/Best_P ractices_for_Ensuring_Consent_for_ Publishing_Medical_Case_Reports_guida nce_from_COPE.pdf

Recommendations: identifiers Names Geographic regions Elements of dates including birth date, date of death, and admission/discharge date Listing ages older than 89 years require additional consent unless providing a single

category of age >90 years Telephone numbers, fax numbers, and email addresses Personal identifying numbers (e.g., social security numbers, medical record numbers) Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs) and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses Biometric identifiers, photographs and images (without specific additional permission, Other unique, identifying characteristics or codes CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.026 Royal College of Radiologists. Guidance on the use of patient images obtained as part of

standard care for teaching, training and research. Dec 2017. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/publication/g uidance-use-patient-images-obtain ed-part-standard-care-teaching-tra ining-and-research Remove meta data connected to images GPS coordinates Camera settings/ make and model of camera Date and time photo taken Name and build of all programmes used to view or edit photo

Cropping/ removal of identifiers (medical images) can be uncropped Data eg patient data may be embedded into images and need to be removed at source Royal College of Radiologists. Guidance on the use of patient images obtained as part of standard care for teaching, training and research. Dec 2017. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/publication/guidance-use-patient-images-obtained-part-standard-car e-teaching-training-and-research Conclusion The bottom line is consent Consent must be compliant with current legislation Practicalities of reconsent Legislation may vary between countries Legislation varies over time

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Eigenfaces for Recognition

    Eigenfaces for Recognition

    Operations for Eigenface. Calculate the eigenfaces from the training set, keeping only the M images that correspond to the highest eigenvalues. These M images define the face space. Calculate the corresponding distribution in M-dimensional weight space for each known individual,...
  • GNB Chapter 8 - California State University, Sacramento

    GNB Chapter 8 - California State University, Sacramento

    In addition to computing an overall activity rate for each activity cost pool, an activity rate is computed for each type of overhead cost that is consumed supporting a given activity. ... Unit-Level Activity Batch-Level Activity Product-Level Activity Customer-Level Activity...
  • Chemistry You Need to Know

    Chemistry You Need to Know

    The first way is GRAPHICAL! Other Ways to ID Endo Vs. Exo Another clue for the endo vs. exo When heat is on the LEFT or REACTANT side it is ENDO: 6.01kJ + H2O(s) H2O(l) When heat is on the...
  • acl engineering a/s advanced well engineering delivered presentation

    acl engineering a/s advanced well engineering delivered presentation

    presentation to running order ACL Engineering Services Areas of Specialism Strategic Partners Tools and Methodologies A Recent Case Study advanced well engineering…delivered ACL Engineering A/S is an independent company that focuses on the management, engineering and delivery of complex well...
  • ExpressRoute for Office 365 Training - f.ch9.ms

    ExpressRoute for Office 365 Training - f.ch9.ms

    Routing Override at the Edge. Proxy Level Override . BGP Propagation Design. If a customer wishes to use ExpressRoute without managing BGP throughout the managed network, there are a number of solutions ... NAT pool advertised to Microsoft must not...
  • Animal Behavior - Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional School District

    Animal Behavior - Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional School District

    Male competition - Cost (competition) benefit (mating) analyses This all applies to Humans too! Sociobiology and animal behavior Living in groups has a great reproductive benefit than cost Ad: Avoid predators, rear offspring, find food Disad: access to food, shelter,...
  • Introduction Understanding the City of Corinth  Strategic Location

    Introduction Understanding the City of Corinth Strategic Location

    He wrote this letter (1 Corinthians). He would later (about a year later) write 2 Corinthians. Part of a series of letters often called "The Salvation Epistles" This includes Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians and Galatians. All written around the...
  • Kits for Kids Solution Fluency Project

    Kits for Kids Solution Fluency Project

    Solution Fluency Project. Presented by: Ruby, Kelsey, Lauren & Maya. Summarized Goal . Our plan is to create care packages that include necessities, and send them to kids who live in refugee camps. Our goal is to start by creating...