- Through myriad mobile health applications linked to wearable devices and smartphone apps, personal health data (PHD) has undeniably become part of healthcare IT. But there also seems to be a divide between what patients know about their PHD privacy and how their data is being used for research.
The Health Data Exploration project, through the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology (Calit2), released a report titled “Personal Data for the Public Good” that, among other things, delved into privacy and data ownership.
About 57 percent of respondents to the report maintained that the dominant condition for making their PHD available for research was an assurance of privacy for their data, and over 90 percent said that it was important that the data be anonymous. Further, while some didn’t care who owned the data they generate, a clear majority wanted to own or at least share owner- ship of the data with the company that collected it.
One specific area of concern is informed consent, as Health Data Exploration researchers are concerned about the privacy of PHD, and the rights of those who provide it. According to researchers, current methods of informed consent are challenged by the ways PHD are being used and reused in research. A variety of new approaches to informed consent are being evaluated and this area is ripe for guidance to assure optimal outcomes for all stakeholders.
Privacy, informed consent and personal data can become a tangled web in the PHD realm. Researchers said that data privacy, IRBs, informed consent, licensing agreements, network and database security, HIPAA and other legal frameworks (both national and international), user interface design, corporate policies and customer relations all played a part in the complexity of informed consent. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has formed a informed consent checklist for use by researchers that elaborate on the considerations, documentation, and conditions under which a waiver may be granted.
(1) research that involves minimal risk to subject
(2) the waiver does not affect the rights or welfare of subjects
(3) it is not practicable to carry out the research without the waiver
(4) subjects receive pertinent information after the study (45 CFR 46.116).
Researchers remained curious whether there is informed consent and how their institutions would handle it. “To me, the whole thing about who should have access to what kind of data really has to do with the person being aware of it,” researchers said.