We hereby give consent for publication and I can state on behalf of all the authors that the work has not been published and is not being considered for publication elsewhere.
‘Nothing is really safe’: a focus group study on the processes of anonymizing and sharing of health data for research purposes
Version of Record online: 13 JUL 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume 17, Issue 6, pages 1140–1146, December 2011
How to Cite
Haddow, G., Bruce, A., Sathanandam, S. and Wyatt, J. C. (2011), ‘Nothing is really safe’: a focus group study on the processes of anonymizing and sharing of health data for research purposes. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17: 1140–1146. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01488.x
- Issue online: 3 NOV 2011
- Version of Record online: 13 JUL 2010
- Accepted for publication: 18 March 2010
- anonymized data;
- lay views;
- warehouse model
Rationale and objectives The availability of anonymized data is a keystone of medical research, yet little is known about lay views towards the process of anonymization or on the way that anonymized medical data are transferred to researchers.
Methods During May and June 2009, as part of a wider consultation on methods for releasing data to researchers, three focus groups (n = 19) were conducted exploring lay attitudes towards the traditional ‘warehouse’ model commonly used in medical research for delivering anonymized National Health Service (NHS) data to researchers. The focus groups explored different processes such as the copying of data, use of programmers for linkage and anonymization, the transfer of data and governance.
Results The recognition of the positive aspects of medical research and desire to support it formed the context for discussions. Nonetheless, individuals varied in their attitudes to the use of anonymized data extracts for research from their health records (without consent); although some appeared positive wanted to be asked to consent for this use. Furthermore, participants were acutely aware of security breaches of NHS information nevertheless, they continued to display a high level of trust in NHS staff. Participants were concerned about the practicalities of the warehouse model and relied on their own life experiences to make sense of the model (using analogies with ‘banks’ or ‘libraries’). The general attitude towards the processes underlying the warehouse model might best be captured by the term ‘ambivalence’.
Conclusions This research (1) offers unique insights into views of anonymization of health data extracts, how it is undertaken and data are transferred and (2) adds to an increasing body of work that demonstrates that a minority of individuals are concerned about consent, even when data are anonymized although (3) those concerned about anonymization do not necessarily seek resolution through gaining consent.