These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
261 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23734773)
1. "Let's get the best quality research we can": public awareness and acceptance of consent to use existing data in health research: a systematic review and qualitative study. Hill EM; Turner EL; Martin RM; Donovan JL BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Jun; 13():72. PubMed ID: 23734773 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Patient and public attitudes towards informed consent models and levels of awareness of Electronic Health Records in the UK. Riordan F; Papoutsi C; Reed JE; Marston C; Bell D; Majeed A Int J Med Inform; 2015 Apr; 84(4):237-47. PubMed ID: 25649841 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Public attitudes towards the use of primary care patient record data in medical research without consent: a qualitative study. Robling MR; Hood K; Houston H; Pill R; Fay J; Evans HM J Med Ethics; 2004 Feb; 30(1):104-9. PubMed ID: 14872086 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Patients' perspectives on opt-out consent for observational research: systematic review and focus group. Cardillo L; Cahill F; Wylie H; Williams A; Zylstra J; Davies A; Fullwood L; Van Hemelrijck M Br J Nurs; 2018 Dec; 27(22):1321-1329. PubMed ID: 30525978 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Patient Perspectives on Sharing Anonymized Personal Health Data Using a Digital System for Dynamic Consent and Research Feedback: A Qualitative Study. Spencer K; Sanders C; Whitley EA; Lund D; Kaye J; Dixon WG J Med Internet Res; 2016 Apr; 18(4):e66. PubMed ID: 27083521 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The effectiveness of health literacy interventions on the informed consent process of health care users: a systematic review protocol. Perrenoud B; Velonaki VS; Bodenmann P; Ramelet AS JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 Oct; 13(10):82-94. PubMed ID: 26571285 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Attitudes of the Japanese public and doctors towards use of archived information and samples without informed consent: preliminary findings based on focus group interviews. Asai A; Ohnishi M; Nishigaki E; Sekimoto M; Fukuhara S; Fukui T BMC Med Ethics; 2002 Jan; 3():E1. PubMed ID: 11825345 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Public responses to the sharing and linkage of health data for research purposes: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Aitken M; de St Jorre J; Pagliari C; Jepson R; Cunningham-Burley S BMC Med Ethics; 2016 Nov; 17(1):73. PubMed ID: 27832780 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Public good, personal privacy: a citizens' deliberation about using medical information for pharmacoepidemiological research. Parkin L; Paul C J Epidemiol Community Health; 2011 Feb; 65(2):150-6. PubMed ID: 19948532 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Consent for use of personal information for health research: do people with potentially stigmatizing health conditions and the general public differ in their opinions? Willison DJ; Steeves V; Charles C; Schwartz L; Ranford J; Agarwal G; Cheng J; Thabane L BMC Med Ethics; 2009 Jul; 10():10. PubMed ID: 19630941 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A systematic literature review of attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: a focus on consent. Hutchings E; Loomes M; Butow P; Boyle FM Syst Rev; 2021 May; 10(1):132. PubMed ID: 33941282 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Young people's views about the purpose and composition of research ethics committees: findings from the PEARL qualitative study. Audrey S; Brown L; Campbell R; Boyd A; Macleod J BMC Med Ethics; 2016 Sep; 17(1):53. PubMed ID: 27590183 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The future of Cochrane Neonatal. Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Public Views on Using Mobile Phone Call Detail Records in Health Research: Qualitative Study. Jones KH; Daniels H; Heys S; Ford DV JMIR Mhealth Uhealth; 2019 Jan; 7(1):e11730. PubMed ID: 30664467 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Young people's views about consenting to data linkage: findings from the PEARL qualitative study. Audrey S; Brown L; Campbell R; Boyd A; Macleod J BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Mar; 16():34. PubMed ID: 27001504 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Investigating the Extent to Which Patients Should Control Access to Patient Records for Research: A Deliberative Process Using Citizens' Juries. Tully MP; Bozentko K; Clement S; Hunn A; Hassan L; Norris R; Oswald M; Peek N J Med Internet Res; 2018 Mar; 20(3):e112. PubMed ID: 29592847 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Building and Sustaining Public Trust in Health Data Sharing for Musculoskeletal Research: Semistructured Interview and Focus Group Study. Yusuf ZK; Dixon WG; Sharp C; Cook L; Holm S; Sanders C J Med Internet Res; 2024 Oct; 26():e53024. PubMed ID: 39405526 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Perspectives of Australian adults about protecting the privacy of their health information in statistical databases. King T; Brankovic L; Gillard P Int J Med Inform; 2012 Apr; 81(4):279-89. PubMed ID: 22306206 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review. Kho ME; Duffett M; Willison DJ; Cook DJ; Brouwers MC BMJ; 2009 Mar; 338():b866. PubMed ID: 19282440 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]