CODE-EHR best practice framework for the use of structured electronic healthcare records in clinical research.

Big data is central to new developments in global clinical science aiming to improve the lives of patients. Technological advances have led to the routine use of structured electronic healthcare records with the potential to address key gaps in clinical evidence. The covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated the potential of big data and related analytics, but also important pitfalls. Verification, validation, and data privacy, as well as the social mandate to undertake research are key challenges. The European Society of Cardiology and the BigData@Heart consortium have brought together a range of international stakeholders, including patient representatives, clinicians, scientists, regulators, journal editors and industry. We propose the CODE-EHR Minimum Standards Framework as a means to improve the design of studies, enhance transparency and develop a roadmap towards more robust and effective utilisation of healthcare data for research purposes.

European Health Data Space-An Opportunity Now to Grasp the Future of Data-Driven Healthcare.

The May 2022 proposal from the European commission for a 'European health data space' envisages advantages for health from exploiting the growing mass of health data in Europe. However, key stakeholders have identified aspects that demand clarification to ensure success. Data will need to be freed from traditional silos to flow more easily and to cross artificial borders. Wide engagement will be necessary among healthcare professionals, researchers, and the patients and citizens that stand to gain the most but whose trust must be won if they are to allow use or transfer of their data. This paper aims to alert the wider scientific community to the impact the ongoing discussions among lawmakers will have. Based on the literature and the consensus findings of an expert multistakeholder panel organised by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) in June 2022, it highlights the key issues at the intersection of science and policy, and the potential implications for health research for years, perhaps decades, to come.

Patients' and Publics' Preferences for Data-Intensive Health Research Governance: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients and publics are generally positive about data-intensive health research. However, conditions need to be fulfilled for their support. Ensuring confidentiality, security, and privacy of patients' health data is pivotal. Patients and publics have concerns about secondary use of data by commercial parties and the risk of data misuse, reasons for which they favor personal control of their data. Yet, the potential of public benefit highlights the potential of building trust to attenuate these perceptions of harm and risk. Nevertheless, empirical evidence on how conditions for support of data-intensive health research can be operationalized to that end remains scant. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to inform efforts to design governance frameworks for data-intensive health research, by gaining insight into the preferences of patients and publics for governance policies and measures. METHODS: We distributed a digital questionnaire among a purposive sample of patients and publics. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and nonparametric inferential statistics to compare group differences and explore associations between policy preferences. RESULTS: Study participants (N=987) strongly favored sharing their health data for scientific health research. Personal decision-making about which research projects health data are shared with (346/980, 35.3%), which researchers/organizations can have access (380/978, 38.9%), and the provision of information (458/981, 46.7%) were found highly important. Health data-sharing policies strengthening direct personal control, like being able to decide under which conditions health data are shared (538/969, 55.5%), were found highly important. Policies strengthening collective governance, like reliability checks (805/967, 83.2%) and security safeguards (787/976, 80.6%), were also found highly important. Further analysis revealed that participants willing to share health data, to a lesser extent, demanded policies strengthening direct personal control than participants who were reluctant to share health data. This was the case for the option to have health data deleted at any time (P<.001) and the ability to decide the conditions under which health data can be shared (P<.001). Overall, policies and measures enforcing conditions for support at the collective level of governance, like having an independent committee to evaluate requests for access to health data (P=.02), were most strongly favored. This also applied to participants who explicitly stressed that it was important to be able to decide the conditions under which health data can be shared, for instance, whether sanctions on data misuse are in place (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that both a positive attitude toward health data sharing and demand for personal decision-making abilities were associated with policies and measures strengthening control at the collective level of governance. We recommend pursuing the development of this type of governance policy. More importantly, further study is required to understand how governance policies and measures can contribute to the trustworthiness of data-intensive health research.

CODE-EHR best-practice framework for the use of structured electronic health-care records in clinical research.

Big data is important to new developments in global clinical science that aim to improve the lives of patients. Technological advances have led to the regular use of structured electronic health-care records with the potential to address key deficits in clinical evidence that could improve patient care. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown this potential in big data and related analytics but has also revealed important limitations. Data verification, data validation, data privacy, and a mandate from the public to conduct research are important challenges to effective use of routine health-care data. The European Society of Cardiology and the BigData@Heart consortium have brought together a range of international stakeholders, including representation from patients, clinicians, scientists, regulators, journal editors, and industry members. In this Review, we propose the CODE-EHR minimum standards framework to be used by researchers and clinicians to improve the design of studies and enhance transparency of study methods. The CODE-EHR framework aims to develop robust and effective utilisation of health-care data for research purposes.

Proof-of-concept trial results of the HeartMan mobile personal health system for self-management in congestive heart failure.

This study tested the effectiveness of HeartMan-a mobile personal health system offering decisional support for management of congestive heart failure (CHF)-on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), self-management, exercise capacity, illness perception, mental and sexual health. A randomized controlled proof-of-concept trial (1:2 ratio of control:intervention) was set up with ambulatory CHF patients in stable condition in Belgium and Italy. Data were collected by means of a 6-min walking test and a number of standardized questionnaire instruments. A total of 56 (34 intervention and 22 control group) participants completed the study (77% male; mean age 63 years, sd 10.5). All depression and anxiety dimensions decreased in the intervention group (p < 0.001), while the need for sexual counselling decreased in the control group (p < 0.05). Although the group differences were not significant, self-care increased (p < 0.05), and sexual problems decreased (p < 0.05) in the intervention group only. No significant intervention effects were observed for HRQoL, self-care confidence, illness perception and exercise capacity. Overall, results of this proof-of-concept trial suggest that the HeartMan personal health system significantly improved mental and sexual health and self-care behaviour in CHF patients. These observations were in contrast to the lack of intervention effects on HRQoL, illness perception and exercise capacity.