Article Text
Abstract
When it comes to using patient data from the National Health Service (NHS) for research, we are often told that it is a matter of trust: we need to trust, we need to build trust, we need to restore trust. Various policy papers and reports articulate and develop these ideas and make very important contributions to public dialogue on the trustworthiness of our research institutions. But these documents and policies are apparently constructed with little sustained reflection on the nature of trust and trustworthiness, and therefore are missing important features that matter for how we manage concerns related to trust. We suggest that what we mean by ‘trust’ and ‘trustworthiness’ matters and should affect the policies and guidance that govern data sharing in the NHS. We offer a number of initial, general reflections on the way in which some of these features might affect our approach to principles, policies and strategies that are related to sharing patient data for research. This paper is the outcome of a ‘public ethics’ coproduction activity which involved members of the public and two academic ethicists. Our task was to consider collectively the accounts of trust developed by philosophers as they applied in the context of the NHS and to coproduce an argumentative position relevant to this context.
- information technology
- interests of health personnel/institutions
- public health ethics
- research ethics
- confidentiality/privacy
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
- information technology
- interests of health personnel/institutions
- public health ethics
- research ethics
- confidentiality/privacy
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Footnotes
Twitter @mark_sheehan_ox
Contributors The workshop was organised and led by MS and PF. MS drafted an initial series of bullet points arising from the discussion and then drafted the first version of the paper. All authors contributed to the discussion over the 3 days of the workshop and shaped the ideas that went into the final version. All authors comment on the paper across the series of drafts.
Funding The workshop was funded by the Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good
- The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble
- Trust and experiences of National Health Service healthcare do not fully explain demographic disparities in coronavirus vaccination uptake in the UK: a cross-sectional study
- How should we think about clinical data ownership?
- Trust and the Goldacre Review: why trusted research environments are not about trust
- Should free-text data in electronic medical records be shared for research? A citizens’ jury study in the UK
- To trust or not to trust (in doctors)? That is the question
- Direct access to potential research participants for a cohort study using a confidentiality waiver included in UK National Health Service legal statutes
- Non-commercial clinical trials of a medicinal product: can they survive the current process of research approvals in the UK?
- Determining the need for ethical review: a three-stage Delphi study