Published September 27, 2021
| Version 1
Journal article
Open
Record linkage of population-based cohort data from minors with national register data: a scoping review and comparative legal analysis of four European countries
Authors/Creators
- 1. Laboratory for Integrative and Translational Research in Population Health (ITR), Porto, 4050-600, Portugal
- 2. INESC TEC -Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science, Campus da Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Porto, 4050-091, Portugal
- 3. Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU – Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, NO-7491, Norway
- 4. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Law, Helsinki, Finland
- 5. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU – Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, NO-7491, Norway
- 6. Children's Hospital, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- 7. Departamento de Ciências da Saúde Pública e Forenses e Educação Médica, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto (FMUP), Porto, Portugal
Description
Background: The GDPR was implemented to build an overarching framework for personal data protection across the EU/EEA. Linkage of data directly collected from cohort participants, potentially serving as a prominent tool for health research, must respect data protection rules and privacy rights. Our objective was to investigate law possibilities of linking cohort data of minors with routinely collected education and health data comparing EU/EEA member states.
Methods: A legal comparative analysis and scoping review was conducted of openly accessible published laws and regulations in EUR-Lex and national law databases on GDPR's implementation in Portugal, Finland, Norway, and the Netherlands and its connected national regulations purposing record linkage for health research that have been implemented up until April 30, 2021.
Results: The GDPR does not ensure total uniformity in data protection legislation across member states offering flexibility for national legislation. Exceptions to process personal data, e.g., public interest and scientific research, must be laid down in EU/EEA or national law. Differences in national interpretation caused obstacles in cross-national research and record linkage: Portugal requires written consent and ethical approval; Finland allows linkage mostly without consent through the national Social and Health Data Permit Authority; Norway when based on regional ethics committee's approval and adequate information technology safeguarding confidentiality; the Netherlands mainly bases linkage on the opt-out system and Data Protection Impact Assessment.
Conclusions: Though the GDPR is the most important legal framework, national legislation execution matters most when linking cohort data with routinely collected health and education data. As national interpretation varies, legal intervention balancing individual right to informational self-determination and public good is gravely needed for health research. More harmonization across EU/EEA could be helpful but should not be detrimental in those member states which already opened a leeway for registries and research for the public good without explicit consent.
Files
openreseurope-1-15260.pdf
Files
(1.1 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:01c4261d923ed1d45920f2250d1ebada
|
1.1 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- Bradley CJ, Penberthy L, Devers KJ (2010). Health Services Research and Data Linkages: Issues, Methods, and Directions for the Future. Health Serv Res. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01142.x
- Celentano D, Szklo M (2018). Gordis Epidemiology.
- von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M (2008). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
- Song JW, Chung KC (2010). Observational Studies: Cohort and Case-Control Studies. Plast Reconstr Surg. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f44abc
- Van Roode T, Sharples K, Dickson N (2017). Life-Course relationship between socioeconomic circumstances and timing of first birth in a birth cohort. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170170
- Moore L, Cisse B, Batomen Kuimi BL (2015). Impact of socio-economic status on hospital length of stay following injury: A multicenter cohort study. Quality, performance, safety and outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0949-2
- Marshall MA, Oates JC, Shoaibi A (2017). A population-based approach for implementing change from opt-out to opt-in research permissions. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168223
- Lehtonen LA (2002). Government registries containing sensitive health data and the implementation of EU directive on the protection of personal data in Finland. Med Law.
- Tromp M, Méray N, Ravelli ACJ (2005). Medical record linkage of anonymous registries without validated sample linkage of the dutch perinatal registries. Stud Health Technol Inform.
- (2017). Introduction to EVIPNet Europe: Conceptual background and case studies.
- Jutte DP, Roos LL, Brownell MD (2011). Administrative record linkage as a tool for public health research. Annu Rev Public Health. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-100700
- Harron K, Doidge JC, Goldstein H (2020). Assessing data linkage quality in cohort studies. Ann Hum Biol. doi:10.1080/03014460.2020.1742379
- Nicholls SG, Langan SM, Sørensen HT (2016). The RECORD reporting guidelines: meeting the methodological and ethical demands of transparency in research using routinely-collected health data. Clin Epidemiol. doi:10.2147/CLEP.S110528
- Harron K, Doidge JC, Goldstein H (2020). Annals of Human Biology Assessing data linkage quality in cohort studies. Ann Hum Biol. doi:10.1080/03014460.2020.1742379
- Padmanabhan S, Carty L, Cameron E (2019). Approach to record linkage of primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink to other health-related patient data : overview and implications. Eur J Epidemiol. doi:10.1007/s10654-018-0442-4
- Ariel A (2014). Record Linkage in Health Data : a simulation study.
- Jutte DP, Roos LL, Brownell MD (2011). Administrative Record Linkage as a Tool for Public Health Research. Annu Rev Public Health. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-100700
- (2015). Record linkage for health studies : three demonstration projects.
- Boyd JH, Randall SM, Ferrante AM (2014). Technical challenges of providing record linkage services for research. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-14-23
- Evans RS (2016). Electronic Health Records: Then, Now, and in the Future. Yearb Med Inform. doi:10.15265/IYS-2016-s006
- Downs J, Gilbert R, Hayes RD (2017). Linking health and education data to plan and evaluate services for children. Arch Dis Child. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2016-311656
- Chamberlayne R, Green B, Barer ML (1998). Creating a Population-based Linked Health Database: A New Resource for Health Services Research. Can J Public Health. doi:10.1007/BF03403934
- Pauly BM, Shahram SZ, Dang PTH (2017). Health Equity Talk: Understandings of Health Equity among Health Leaders. AIMS Public Health. doi:10.3934/publichealth.2017.5.490
- Adams O, Shengelia B, Stilwell B (null). PROVISION OF PERSONAL AND NON-PERSONAL HEALTH SERVICES : PROPOSAL FOR MONITORING.
- (2002). Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. eur-lex.europa.eu.
- (2017). REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning the respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications and repealing Directive 2002/58/EC (Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications).
- (2016). Report on the implementation of specific provisions of Regulation.
- Lopes IC, Doetsch J, Redinha MR (2019). Data protection and the processing of personal data of very preterm (VPT) and very low birth weight (VLBW) children for scientific health research. Rev Electrónica Direito. doi:10.24840/2182-9845_2019-0003_0005
- van Veen EB (2018). Observational health research in Europe: understanding the General Data Protection Regulation and underlying debate. Eur J Cancer. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2018.09.032
- (null). EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Regulation (EU) 2016/679. European Parliament European Council.
- Coppen R, van Veen EB, Groenewegen PP (2015). Will the trilogue on the EU Data Protection Regulation recognise the importance of health research?. Eur J Public Health. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckv149
- (2017). GDPR and research.
- (2021). Helsinki Declaration.
- Doetsch J, Lopes I, Redinha R (2020). Record linkage of routine data with cohorts' data of infants under European and Portuguese law. Eur J Public Health. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaa166.178
- Vayena E, Scheibner J, Ferretti A (2019). How the General Data Protection Regulation changes the rules for scientific research. doi:10.2861/17421
- (2021). Information Commissioner's office.
- (2018). Handbook on European data protection law 2018 edition.
- (2020). Finnish Information Centre for Register Research.
- (2020). Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).
- (2020). Findata.
- (2019). The Act on the Secondary Use of Health and Social Data.
- (2020). REK.
- (2021). Your research: Is it subject to the WMO or not.
- en Honing GA, van der Sande-de Vries JH (2004). Gedragscode Gezondheidsonderzoek.
- Ploem MC, Rigte T, Gevers JKM (2020). Medisch data-onderzoek in het AVG-tijdperk: een zoektocht naar de juiste regels. Tijdschr voor Gezondheidsr. doi:10.5553/tvgr/016508742020044002004
- Boeckhout M, Beusink M, Bouter L (2020). Niet-WMO-plichtig onderzoek en ethische toetsing.
- Dove ES (2018). The EU General Data Protection Regulation: Implications for International Scientific Research in the Digital Era. J Law Med Ethics. doi:10.1177/1073110518822003
- Mourby M, Mackey E, Elliot M (2018). Are 'pseudonymised' data always personal data? Implications of the GDPR for administrative data research in the UK. Comput Law Secur Rev. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2018.01.002
- Chen J (2016). How the best-laid plans go awry: the (unsolved) issues of applicable law in the General Data Protection Regulation. Int Data Priv Law. doi:10.1093/idpl/ipw020
- (2020). Commission and Germany's Presidency of the Council of the EU underline importance of the European Health Data Space.
- Daniel P, Choi SJ, de Meneses AO (2021). European Commission Conducts Open Consultation on the European Health Data Space Initiative.
- (null). What is personal data?.
- Donnelly M, McDonagh M (2019). Health research, consent and the GDPR exemption. Eur J Health Law. doi:10.1163/15718093-12262427
- Dove ES, Chen J (2020). Should consent for data processing be privileged in health research? A comparative legal analysis. Int Data Priv Law. doi:10.1093/idpl/ipz023
- Rehana Kamal SUZ, Ismail S, Saeed S (2006). Informed consent and cultural diversity. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol.
- Halkoaho A, Pietilä AM, Ebbesen M (2016). Cultural aspects related to informed consent in health research: A systematic review. Nurs Ethics. doi:10.1177/0969733015579312
- Miller CJ, Burgess JF, Fischer EP (2017). Practical application of opt-out recruitment methods in two health services research studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0333-5
- Vellinga A, Cormican M, Hanahoe B (2011). Opt-out as an acceptable method of obtaining consent in medical research: A short report. BMC Med Res Methodol. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-40
- Marques SCS, Doetsch J, Abate G (2021). Understanding participation in European cohort studies of preterm children: the views of parents, healthcare professionals and researchers. BMC Med Res Methodol. doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01206-5
- Marques SCS, Doetsch J, Brødsgaard A (2020). Improving Understanding of participation and attrition phenomena in European Cohort Studies: Protocol for a Multi-situated Qualitative Study. JMIR Res Protoc. doi:10.2196/14997
- Teixeira R, Queiroga AC, Freitas AI (2021). Completeness of Retention Data and Determinants of Attrition in Birth Cohorts of Very Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review. Front Pediatr. doi:10.3389/fped.2021.529733
- (2016). Cardiovascular News - Shivan J Mehta, An 'opt-out' approach may encourage more patient participation in research.
- Galea S, Tracy M (2007). Participation Rates in Epidemiologic Studies. Ann Epidemiol. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.03.013
- Nordfalk F, Hoeyer K (2020). The rise and fall of an opt-out system. Scand J Public Health. doi:10.1177/1403494817745189
- Griffith R (2016). What is Gillick competence?. Hum Vaccines Immunother. doi:10.1080/21645515.2015.1091548
- Shabani M, Borry P (2018). Rules for processing genetic data for research purposes in view of the new EU General Data Protection Regulation. Eur J Hum Genet. doi:10.1038/s41431-017-0045-7
- Cornock M (2018). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and implications for research. Maturitas. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.01.017
- Chico V, Hagger L (2011). The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and mature minors: A missed opportunity?. J Soc Welf Fam Law. doi:10.1080/09649069.2011.617073
- Donnelly M (2009). Capacity assessment under the mental capacity act 2005: Delivering on the functional approach?. Leg Stud. doi:10.1111/j.1748-121X.2009.00133.x
- Rutten-van Mölken M (2017). Common challenges faced in EU-funded projects on integrated care for vulnerable persons. Int J Integr Care. doi:10.5334/ijic.3104
- (2018). Ethics and data protection.
- De Lange DW, Guidet B, Andersen FH (2019). Huge variation in obtaining ethical permission for a non-interventional observational study in Europe. BMC Med Ethics. doi:10.1186/s12910-019-0373-y
- Petrini C (2016). What is the role of ethics committees after Regulation (EU) 536/2014?. J Med Ethics. doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-103028
- Dove ES, Garattini C (2018). Expert perspectives on ethics review of international data-intensive research: Working towards mutual recognition. Res Ethics. doi:10.1177/1747016117711972
- Ezzat H, Ross S, Von Dadelszen P (2010). Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: The investigator's perspective. BMC Health Serv Res. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-223
- Walanj A (2014). Research ethics committees: Need for harmonization at the national level, the global and Indian perspective. Perspect Clin Res. doi:10.4103/2229-3485.128022
- (2021). RECAP preterm.
- Maret-Ouda J, Tao W, Wahlin K (2017). Nordic registry-based cohort studies: Possibilities and pitfalls when combining Nordic registry data. Scand J Public Health. doi:10.1177/1403494817702336
- (2020). Norwegian Health Registry.
- Vogel D (2010). Matching survey responses with anonymity in environments with privacy concerns: A practical guide. Int J Public Sect Manag.
- Johnson SB (2010). Using global unique identifiers to link autism collections. J Am Med Inform Assoc. doi:10.1136/jamia.2009.002063
- Martin A, Martinovic I (2016). Security and Privacy Impacts of a Unique Personal Identifier.
- Hejblum BP, Weber GM, Liao KP (2019). Probabilistic record linkage of de-identified research datasets with discrepancies using diagnosis codes. Sci Data. doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.298
- Yuan B, Li J (2019). The policy effect of the general data protection regulation (GDPR) on the digital public health sector in the european union: An empirical investigation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. doi:10.3390/ijerph16061070
- Beck EJ, Shields JM, Tanna G (2018). Developing and implementing national health identifiers in resource limited countries: why what, who when and how?. Glob Health Action. doi:10.1080/16549716.2018.1440782
- Sorbie A, Gueddana W, Laurie G (2021). Examining the power of the social imaginary through competing narratives of data ownership in health research. J Law Biosci. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsaa068
- Cornock M (2018). How the writers of case reports need to consider and address consent and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Case Rep Womens Health. doi:10.1016/j.crwh.2018.e00060
- Almeida Teixeira G, Mira da Silva M, Pereira R (2019). The critical success factors of GDPR implementation: a systematic literature review. Digit Policy Regul Gov.
- Townend D (2018). Conclusion: harmonisation in genomic and health data sharing for research: an impossible dream?. Hum Genet. doi:10.1007/s00439-018-1924-x
- Chico V (2018). The impact of the general data protection regulation on health research. Br Med Bull. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldy038