Blockchain-Based Dynamic Consent and its Applications for Patient-Centric Research and Health Information Sharing: Protocol for an Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blockchain has been proposed as a critical technology to facilitate more patient-centric research and health information sharing. For instance, it can be applied to coordinate and document dynamic informed consent, a procedure that allows individuals to continuously review and renew their consent to the collection, use, or sharing of their private health information. Such has been suggested to facilitate ethical, compliant longitudinal research, and patient engagement. However, blockchain-based dynamic consent is a relatively new concept, and it is not yet clear how well the suggested implementations will work in practice. Efforts to critically evaluate implementations in health research contexts are limited. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this protocol is to guide the identification and critical appraisal of implementations of blockchain-based dynamic consent in health research contexts, thereby facilitating the development of best practices for future research, innovation, and implementation. METHODS: The protocol describes methods for an integrative review to allow evaluation of a broad range of quantitative and qualitative research designs. The PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) framework guided the review's structure and nature of reporting findings. We developed search strategies and syntax with the help of an academic librarian. Multiple databases were selected to identify pertinent academic literature (CINAHL, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) and gray literature (Electronic Theses Online Service, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, and Google Scholar) for a comprehensive picture of the field's progress. Eligibility criteria were defined based on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) requirements and a criteria framework for technology readiness. A total of 2 reviewers will independently review and extract data, while a third reviewer will adjudicate discrepancies. Quality appraisal of articles and discussed implementations will proceed based on the validated Mixed Method Appraisal Tool, and themes will be identified through thematic data synthesis. RESULTS: Literature searches were conducted, and after duplicates were removed, 492 articles were eligible for screening. Title and abstract screening allowed the removal of 312 articles, leaving 180 eligible articles for full-text review against inclusion criteria and confirming a sufficient body of literature for project feasibility. Results will synthesize the quality of evidence on blockchain-based dynamic consent for patient-centric research and health information sharing, covering effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, regulatory compliance, and methods of managing identity. CONCLUSIONS: The review will provide a comprehensive picture of the progress of emerging blockchain-based dynamic consent technologies and the rigor with which implementations are approached. Resulting insights are expected to inform best practices for future research, innovation, and implementation to benefit patient-centric research and health information sharing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023396983; http://tinyurl.com/cn8a5x7t. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/50339.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.133 | 0.262 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.014 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".