MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2798773405

Research Participants' Rights to Access Information about Themselves Held by Public Research Institutions

2010· article· en· W2798773405 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Nola M. Ries

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEthics in Clinical Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConfidentialityFreedom of informationLegislationPublic relationsInternet privacyPersonally identifiable informationPolitical scienceInformed consentPsychologySociologyLawComputer scienceMedicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction The growth in longitudinal studies that involve collection and banking of personal information and biological samples from research participants over many years has generated wide-ranging analysis of associated ethical, legal and social aspects, especially issues of consent, privacy and confidentiality, handling of research findings, and benefit sharing. (1) One issue, however, that has received relatively little attention in the discussion of research databanks is the right of participants to request access to information about themselves held by researchers. Over the course of long-term study, much information about participants will be collected and recorded, including participant responses to study questionnaires and other instruments, records of physical measures, and results from analyses of blood or other biological samples that may be conducted for some studies. As discussed below, key fair information principle is that individuals ought to be able to know about and access personal information about themselves, especially information held by public institutions. Indeed, freedom of information laws across Canada codify right to access information held by public bodies, subject only to specified exceptions. (2) What is the scope of research participants' right to obtain access to information about themselves held by researchers in public institutions, such as universities? How does legislation apply to records created for research purposes? What factors should researchers consider in developing policies to handle access requests? To address these and related questions, this paper discusses the development of Canadian legal principles concerning access to personal information, focusing particularly on health information. It begins with brief overview of Canadian common law principles about access to health care records, then turns to the development of statutory access to information rules. Legislative provisions that apply to records obtained or created for research purposes are summarised and practical considerations for developing access to information policies are discussed. Canadian Common Law: McInerney v. MacDonald To open the discussion of information access rights, it is worth looking back to the 1992 Supreme Court of Canada decision in McInerney v. MacDonald. (3) This litigation concerned the common law right of patient to access records held by her physician. Dr. McInerney provided copies of records she had created, but refused to release copies of reports she had received from other physicians. In her view, those documents were the property of the other physicians and Ms. McInerney should contact them directly to request access. Ruling in the patient's favour, the Supreme Court of Canada held that patient has right to access their health care records and that physician should provide access to all records that informed the patient's treatment, including records obtained from other health care providers. The Court based this access right on the fiduciary relationship between the physician and the patient and noted that a patient has vital interest in the information contained in his or her medical records. (4) While the relationship between researcher and participant may arguably be characterised as fiduciary in limited circumstances, such as the relationship between physician-researcher and patient-participant in clinical trial, (5) the McInerney case is nonetheless notable in emphasising the importance of access to information about oneself. The nature of the information contained in research records is similar to the Supreme Court's description of information contained in medical records: at least in part, medical records contain information about the patient revealed by the patient ... Of primary significance is the fact that the records consist of information that is highly private and personal to the individual. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,068
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,046
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,842
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0680,046
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,883
Tête enseignante GPT0,752
Écart entre enseignants0,131 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth law reviewMême sujetEthics in Clinical ResearchTravaux en français237 207