The Data Protection Act (1998): implications for health researchers
- 27 August 2001
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Vol. 35 (4), 508-513
- https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01867.x
Abstract
The Data Protection Act (1998): implications for health researchers Aims. This paper reports on the methods used in two studies to obtain access to subjects to comply with the common law duty of confidence laid out in the Data Protection Act (1998) and discusses the researchers’ problems in interpreting the procedures. Rationale. The amendments to the United Kingdom (UK) Data Protection Act (1998) are causing confusion within the health service and academic institutions. There is a need to balance patient confidentiality with the requirement to conduct vital, unbiased research in which health service professionals are not subject to ethical dilemmas. This paper examines the recruitment methods used in two studies in which the researchers’ attempts to adhere to the requirements lengthened the study costs and may have produced less reliable results. Methods. The methodological difficulties in two studies are presented. In Study 1, the difficulties encountered when the Multicentre Research Ethics Committee refused permission for researchers to recruit patients directly to a multicentre randomized controlled trial are discussed. In Study 2, the method used to compile a sampling frame for a national questionnaire survey following the eight principles of the Act are described. Findings. Our experience has shown that health care professionals are increasingly required to recruit patients to intervention trials, and that researchers are not allowed access to the names of patients or other subjects to ask them for consent to participate in a study. The requirement for researchers to use ‘intermediaries’ to obtain consent from and recruit subjects to studies increases the risk of selection bias, may expose the practitioner to ethical difficulties and may compromise the external validity of trial results. There is also a danger that research costs will soar when the Data Protection Act (1998) is fully realized. Conclusion. The Data Protection Act (1998) is currently being interpreted in a number of different ways. We conclude there is an urgent need for consensus within the health service and academic communities.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Data protection legislation: interpretation and barriers to researchBMJ, 2000
- An epidemiological study to establish the prevalence of urinary symptoms and felt need in the community: the Leicestershire MRC incontinence studyJournal of Public Health, 2000
- Randomised controlled trials in primary care: case studyBMJ, 2000
- Injury surveillance programmes, ethics, and the Data Protection Act Sharing data to prevent injuries Potential problems for tenants The legal position Ethical viewpointBMJ, 1999
- Designing evaluations of interventions to change professional practice.Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 1999
- World Medical Association Declaration of HelsinkiPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1997
- Prospective recruitment of women receiving prenatal care from diverse provider arrangements: a potential strategy.Maternal and Child Health Journal, 1997
- The role and self‐perceived training needs of nurses employed in general practice: observations from a national census of practice nurses in England and WalesJournal of Advanced Nursing, 1994