Correspondence

Data protection and consent to biomedical research: a step forward?

Insights into the incidence and survival of cancer, the influence of lifestyle and environmental factors and the interaction of treatment regimens with outcomes are hugely dependent on observational research, patient data derived from the healthcare system and from volunteers participating in cohort studies, often non-selective. Since 25th May 2018, the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies to such data. The GDPR focusses on more individual control for data subjects of ‘their’ data. Yet, the GDPR was preceded by a long debate. The research community participated actively in that debate, and as a result, the GDPR has research exemptions as well. Some of those apply directly; other exemptions need to be implemented into national law. Those exemptions will be discussed together with a general outline of the GDPR. I propose a substantive definition of research—absent in the GDPR—which can warrant its special status in the GDPR. The debate is not over yet. Most legal texts exhibit ambiguity and are interpreted against a background of values. In this case, those could be subsumed under informational self-determination versus solidarity and the deeper meaning of autonomy. Values will also guide national implementation and their interpretation. The value of individual control or informational self-determination should be balanced by nuanced visions about our mutual dependency in healthcare, as an ever-learning system, especially in the European solidarity-based healthcare systems. Good research governance might be a way forward to escape the consent or anonymise dichotomy.

Study design, personal persuasions, and experiences can influence willingness to participate in clinical trials (CTs). A study assessed differences between Parkinson’s disease (PD) or epilepsy patients having participated in CTs and non-participants in knowledge of and attitudes toward CTs. Also considered were factors in willingness to take part and how CT participants experienced the informed consent process.

Random samples of members of Finland’s PD (n = 2000) and epilepsy (n = 1875) patient organisations were posted a questionnaire on their views about CTs. Of the 1050 questionnaires returned, 845 met inclusion criteria. In total, 126 had participated in CTs.

While over 90% of respondents knew that participation is always voluntary, CT participants were more often aware that one can withdraw (p<0.001). In both groups, most did not recognise the possibility of randomisation, and 57% in both CT participants and non-participants indicated that CTs are aimed primarily at seeking the best medication for the participant. Nevertheless, 83% of CT participants indicated ability to understand the information provided.

While most in our study agreed that patients should be asked to participate in CTs, only 15% of subjects had done so. The discrepancy between willingness to participate and recruitment figures could be minimised by improving knowledge of CTs and communication between patients and researchers. Additionally, the groups displayed comparable false CT-related assumptions, raising questions about whether these subjects fully understood the clinical research’s ultimate goal and CT participants had given true informed consent. These issues have practical and ethics implications for clinical investigators.