Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-gctlb Total loading time: 0.266 Render date: 2022-07-01T10:46:16.940Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Abstract

Drawing on a landscape analysis of existing data-sharing initiatives, in-depth interviews with expert stakeholders, and public deliberations with community advisory panels across the U.S., we describe features of the evolving medical information commons (MIC). We identify participant-centricity and trustworthiness as the most important features of an MIC and discuss the implications for those seeking to create a sustainable, useful, and widely available collection of linked resources for research and other purposes.

Type
Symposium Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See Boyd, R., Richerson, P.J., Meizen-Dick, R., and De Moor, T. et al., “Tragedy Revisited,” Science 362, no. 6420 (2018): 1236-1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council, Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Cook-Deegan, R., Majumder, M.A., McGuire, A.L., “Introduction: Sharing Data in a Medical Information Commons,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 47, no. 1 (2019): 7-11; P.A. Deverka, M.A. Majumder, A.G. Villanueva and M. Anderson et al., “Creating a Data Resource: What Will It Take to Build a Medical Information Commons?” Genome Medicine 9, no. 84 (2017): 1-5, available at <https://genomemedicine.biomed-central.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-017-0476-3> (last visited January 4, 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Hess, C. and Ostrom, E., eds., Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice (Cambridge; London: MIT Press, 2011); E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); and E. Ostrom, Understanding Institutional Diversity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Majumder, M.A., Bollinger, J.M., Villanueva, A. G., Deverka, P.A., and Koenig, B.A., “The Role of Participants in a Medical Information Commons,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 47, no. 1 (2019): 51-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deverka, P.A., Gilmore, D., Richmond, J., and Smith, Z. et al., “Hopeful and Concerned: Public Input on Building a Trustworthy Medical Information Commons,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 47, no. 1 (2019): 70-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N., Bragg, C., Hartzler, A., and Edwards, K., “Participant-Centric Initiatives: Tools to Facilitate Engagement in Research,” Applied & Translational Genomics 1 (2012): at 25; J. Kayne, L. Curren, N. Anderson, and K. Edwards et al., “From Patients to Partners: Participant-Centric Initiatives in Biomedical Research,” Nature Reviews Genetics 13 (2012): 371-376.Google Scholar
Ball, M.P., Bobe, J.R., Chou, M.F., and Clegg, T. et al., “Harvard Personal Genome Project: Lessons from Participatory Public Research,” Genome Medicine 6, no. 10 (2014).Google Scholar
Ostrom's case studies of successful commons typically involved activity on a relatively small scale with participants who shared values and goals and had ongoing relationships with one another. At the same time, Ostrom and colleagues articulated a principle of “nesting” that allows for governance at multiple levels. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., and Stern, P.C., “The Struggle to Govern the Commons,” Science 3012 (2003): 1907-1912. In this respect, the vision we articulate of an MIC as a collection of linked data commons that vary along a number of dimensions but all adhere to a set of high-level design principles (based on multi-stakeholder input) in arriving at their particular rules aligns with Ostrom's work. See M.A. Majumder, P.D. Zuk, A.L. McGuire, “Medical Information Commons,” in B. Hudson, J. Rosenbloom, and D. Cole, eds., Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons (Routledge, Forthcoming 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For example, the concept of “inferential disclosure,” which refers to the potential use of available data to determine the value of some characteristic of an individual more accurately than would have been possible absent that data, captures the risk of harm that exists even absent definitive re-identification of an individual's information within a dataset. See, e.g., “Report of the Committee on National Statistics' Panel on Confidentiality and Data Access,” Duncan, G.T., Jabine, T.B., and de Wolf, V.A., eds., Private Lives and Public Policies (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993): at 24.Google Scholar
See Noble, S.U., Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism (New York: New York University Press, 2018); C. O'Neil, Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2016); V. Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2018).Google Scholar
See National Institutes of Health, Request for Comments: Proposal to Update Data Management of Genomic Summary Results Under the NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy, National Institutes of Health Website, available at <https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-110.html> (last visited January 4, 2019); S. O. Dyke, E.S. Dove, and B.M. Knoppers, “Sharing Health-Related Data: A Privacy Test?” Genomic Medicine 1, Article no. 16024 (2016).+(last+visited+January+4,+2019);+S.+O.+Dyke,+E.S.+Dove,+and+B.M.+Knoppers,+“Sharing+Health-Related+Data:+A+Privacy+Test?”+Genomic+Medicine+1,+Article+no.+16024+(2016).>Google Scholar
Green, R.C., Lautenbach, D., and McGuire, A.L., “Gina, Genetic Discrimination, and Genomic Medicine,” New England Journal of Medicine 372, no. 5 (2015): 397-399; M.A. Rothstein, “GINA at Ten and the Future of Genetic Nondiscrimination Law,” Hasting Center Report 48, no. 3 (2018): 5-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlich, Y., Williams, J.B., Glazer, D., and Yocum, K et al., “Redefining Genomic Privacy: Trust and Empowerment,” PLOS Biology 12, no. 11 (2014): e1001983, available at <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001983> (last visited January 4, 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
S. Scheridan, S. Schrandt, and L. Forsythe, Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement, Hilliard, T., K. and Paez, A., “The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research,” Annals of Family Medicine 15, no. 2 (2017): 165-170; L.E. Ellis and N.E. Kass, “How Are PCORI-funded Researchers Engaging Patients in Research and What Are the Ethical Implications?” AJOB Empirical Bioethics 8, no. 1 (2017): 1-10; E. Nelson, M. Dixon-Woods, P.B. Batalden, K. Homa, et al., “Patient-Focused Registries Can Improve Health, Care, and Science,” BMJ 354 (2016).Google Scholar
PE International, PXE International Facebook group web-page, available at <https://www.facebook.com/groups/PXEers/> (last visited January 4, 2019); S. Lozinsky, Chordoma Connection is here! (January 23, 2018), Chordoma Foundation Website, available at <https://www.chordoma-foundation.org/latest-updates/chordoma-connections-is-here/> (last visited January 4, 2019).+(last+visited+January+4,+2019);+S.+Lozinsky,+Chordoma+Connection+is+here!+(January+23,+2018),+Chordoma+Foundation+Website,+available+at++(last+visited+January+4,+2019).>Google Scholar
The Life Raft Group, “The LRG Mission & Vision,” The LRG Website, available at <https://liferaftgroup.org/the-lrg-mission-vision/> (last visited January 4, 2019).+(last+visited+January+4,+2019).>Google Scholar
See the Home and Research Results pages on the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Website, available at <https://themmrf.org/> (last visited January 4, 2019).+(last+visited+January+4,+2019).>Google Scholar
Feldman, M.P. and Graddy-Reed, A., “Accelerating Commercialization: A New Model of Strategic Foundation Funding,” Journal of Technology Transfer 39, no. 4 (2014): 503523, available at <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9311-1> (last visited January 4, 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Another example is the David Fajgenbaum and Castleman Disease Collaborative Network. See Fajgenbaum, D.C., Ruth, J.R., Kelleher, D., and Rubenstein, A.H., “The Collaborative Network Approach: A New Framework to Accelerate Castle-man's Disease and Other Rare Disease Research,” The Lancet Haematology 3, no. 4 (2016): PE150-E152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blockchain is described by Ozercan et al. (2018) as a distributed database technology. In the context of an MIC, blockchain would allow for decentralized MIC comprised of multiple databases. For a discussion of blockchain and genomic data sharing, including examples of emerging data-sharing projects, see Ozercan, H.I., Ileri, A.M., Ayday, E., and Alkan, C., “Realizing the Potential of Blockchain Technologies in Genomics,” Genome Research 28, no. 9 (2018): 12551263, available at <https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.207464.116> (last visited January 4, 2019).Google Scholar
See Deverka, supra note 6.Google Scholar
Goodman, D., Bowen, D., Tehrani, P., and Fernando, F. et al., “The Research Participant Perspective Related to the Conduct of Genomic Cohort Studies: A Systematic Review of the Quantitative Literature,” Translational Behavioral Medicine 8, no. 1 (2018): 119-129 (focus on large genomic cohort studies); K.K. Kim and L. Ohno-Machado, “Comparison of Consumers' Views on Electronic Data Sharing for Healthcare and Research,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 22, no. 4 (2015): 821-830 (focus on electronic data use during an emergency). See also D. Goodman, C.O. Johnson, L. Wenzel, and D. Bowen, “Consent Issues in Genetic Research: Views of Research Participants,” Public Health Genomics 19, no. 4 (2016): 220-228; S.C. Hull et al., “Patients' Views on Identifiability of Samples and Informed Consent for Genetic Research,” American Journal of Bioethics 8, no. 10 (2008): 62-70. But see N.A. Garrison et al., “A Systematic Literature Review of Individuals' Perspectives on Broad Consent and Data Sharing in the United States,” Genetics in Medicine 18, no. 7 (2016): 663-671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, “Legal and Computer Science Approaches to Privacy,” in Groves, R.W. and Harris-Kojetin, B.A., eds., in Federal Statistics, Multiple Data Sources, and Privacy Protection: Next Steps (Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press, 2017): 61-78, available at <https://doi.org/10.17226/24893> (last visited January 4, 2019; J.R. Botkin, et al., “Retention and Research Use of Residual Newborn Screening Bloodspots,” Pediatrics 131, no. 1 (2013): 120–27; J. Illman, “Cancer Registries: Should Informed Consent Be Required?” JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94, no. 17 (2002): 1269–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For example, in the UK, discussion of sharing clinical (genomic) data has been framed in terms of a social contract. See annual report of the Chief Medical Officer 2016: Generation Genome, available at <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/631043/CMO_annual_report_generation_genome.pdf> (last visited January 4, 2019).+(last+visited+January+4,+2019).>Google Scholar
See Deverka, supra note 6.Google Scholar
Several seats refers to representation at multiple levels of governance (e.g. steering committee, data access committee, etc.) and having multiple representatives on the same level (i.e. more than one on a data access committee to facilitate diversity).Google Scholar
Bollinger, J.M. et al., “What Is a Medical Information Commons?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 47, no. 1 (2019): 41-50.Google Scholar
See Majumder, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Concerning the challenges of ensuring that patient representatives are truly “representative,” see von Tigerstrom, B., “The Patient's Voice: Patient Involvement in Medical Product Regulation,” Medical Law International 16, no. 1-2 (2016): 27-57; See Majumder, supra note 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Deverka, supra note 6.Google Scholar
Li, A.M. and Terry, S.F., “Linking Personal Health Data to Genomic Research,” Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers 19, no. 1 (2014): 12; “LunaDNA - A Community Owned Genomic and Medical Research Platform,” available at <https://www.LunaDNA.com/> (last visited January 4, 2019).Google Scholar
See Arias, J.J. et al., “Trust, Vulnerable Populations, and Genetic Data Sharing,” Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2, no. 3 (2015): 747-753.Google Scholar
Adjekum, A., Ienca, M., and Vayena, E., “What Is Trust? Ethics and Risk Governance in Precision Medicine and Predictive Analytics,” Omics: A Journal of Integrative Biology 21, no. 12 (2017): at 706, available at <https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/omi.2017.0156> (last visited January 4, 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Id., at 705.Google Scholar
See Deverka, supra note 6.Google Scholar
Knoppers, B.M., “Framework for Responsible Sharing of Genomic and Health-Related Data,” Hugo Journal 8, no. 1 (2014): 3, available at <https://thehugojournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s11568-014-0003-1> (last visited January 4, 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Parts 160, 164. 38. 40. A.Google Scholar
Thorogood, A., Bobe, J., Prainsack, B., and Middleton, A. et al., “APPLaUD: Access for Patients and Participants to Individual Level Uninterpreted Genomic Data,” Human Genomics 12, no. 7 (2018), available at <https://humgenomics.biomed-central.com/articles/10.1186/s40246-018-0139-5> (last visited February 21, 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See GetMyHealthData.org for stories about how patients have faced challenges in requesting access to their data.Google Scholar
See Bollinger, supra note 29.Google Scholar
Botkin, J. R., Mancher, M., Busta, E.R., and Downey, A.S., eds, Returning Individual Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm (July 2018), available at <http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2018/returning-individual-research-results-to-participants.aspx> (last visited January 4, 2019).+(last+visited+January+4,+2019).>Google Scholar
Gressin, S., The Equifax Data Breach: What to Do (September 2017), Federal Trade Commission Website, available at <https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2017/09/equifax-data-breach-what-doK> (last visited January 4, 2019); K. Fazzini and C. Farr, Facebook “Closed” Groups Weren't As Confidential as Some Thought (August 2018), CNBC Website, available at <https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/facebook-private-groups-breast-cancer-privacy-loophole.html> (last visited January 4, 2019).+(last+visited+January+4,+2019);+K.+Fazzini+and+C.+Farr,+Facebook+“Closed”+Groups+Weren't+As+Confidential+as+Some+Thought+(August+2018),+CNBC+Website,+available+at++(last+visited+January+4,+2019).>Google Scholar
Kohane, I.S. and Altman, R.B., “Health Information Altruists – A Potentially Critical Resource,” New England Journal of Medicine 353, no. 19 (2005): 2074-2077.Google Scholar
Gymrek, M., McGuire, A.L., Golan, D., Halperin, E., and Erlich, Y., “Identifying Personal Genomes by Surname Inference,” Science 339 (2013): 321-324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881 (2008), available at <https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ233/html/PLAW-110publ233.htm> (last visited January 4, 2019).+(last+visited+January+4,+2019).>Google Scholar
Phillips, M., Dove, E.S., and Knoppers, B.M., “Criminal Prohibition of Wrongful Re-identification: Legal Solution or Minefield for Big Data?” Bioethical Inquiry 14, no. 4 (2017): 527539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See discussion of a possible anti-commons in the context of biomedical research in Heller, M.A. and Eisenberg, R.S., “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research,” Science 280, no. 5364 (1998): 698701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *