Key Takeaways
- Participant consent is central to ethical biobanking and electronic health record (EHR) data sharing practices, balancing scientific advancement with individual autonomy and privacy rights.
- Consent models range from broad to dynamic, each offering different advantages for research flexibility and participant control over health data usage.
- Regulatory frameworks including HIPAA, GDPR, and the Common Rule shape consent requirements across different jurisdictions with varying stringency.
- Dependent and historically marginalized populations require enhanced consent protections to address past exploitation and power imbalances in medical research.
- Emerging technologies like blockchain and digital consent platforms are creating opportunities for more transparent, dynamic consent processes.
- Standardization of consent processes across institutions remains a significant challenge but is essential for interoperability in multi-site research.
The intersection of biobanking and electronic health record (EHR) data sharing represents one of the most promising frontiers in medical research. These vast repositories of biological samples and digital health information enable large-scale studies that can accelerate discoveries in precision medicine, epidemiology, and public health. However, the collection, storage, and sharing of such sensitive personal data raise ethical and legal questions about participant autonomy, privacy protection, and the appropriate balance between individual rights and collective benefits.
At the center of these considerations lies participant consent—the process by which individuals authorize the use of their biological specimens and health data for research purposes. This article examines the complex role of consent in biobanking and EHR data sharing, exploring consent models, regulatory frameworks, implementation challenges, and emerging solutions.
Evolution of Consent Models in Biobanking and Data Sharing
Traditional Informed Consent
Traditional informed consent has been the ethical standard for medical research since the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki. This model requires researchers to inform participants about specific study objectives, procedures, risks, and benefits before obtaining consent. However, traditional consent presents significant limitations for biobanking and EHR research, where future uses of specimens and data often cannot be fully anticipated at the time of collection.
Broad Consent
In response to these limitations, broad consent has emerged as an alternative model where participants provide permission for unspecified future research uses within certain parameters. Broad consent addresses the practical challenges of biorepositories but raises concerns about meaningful autonomy when participants cannot know the specific ways their data might be used. The revised Common Rule (45 CFR Part 46) in the United States formally recognizes broad consent as a legitimate option for certain biospecimen research.
Tiered Consent
Tiered consent models offer participants choices regarding which types of research may use their samples and data. For example, participants might consent to cancer research but decline genetic studies or commercial applications. Tiered consent increases participant satisfaction but adds administrative complexity for biobanks managing these varied permissions.
Dynamic Consent
Dynamic consent represents a modern, technology-enabled approach where participants can modify their preferences over time through digital platforms. It supports ongoing engagement and provides granular control over data usage. However, it requires significant technological infrastructure.
Waiver of Consent
In some circumstances, research ethics committees may waive consent requirements for retrospective studies using de-identified data and samples when obtaining consent is impracticable. While waivers facilitate valuable research using existing collections, they must be balanced against respect for participant autonomy and potential community concerns about unconsented research.
Regulatory Frameworks Governing Consent
United States Regulations
In the United States, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule governs the use and disclosure of protected health information. Research using identifiable health information generally requires specific authorization, though de-identified data may be used without participant consent. The Common Rule establishes additional requirements for federally funded research involving human subjects. Research using de-identified biospecimens or EHR data may be classified as not involving human subjects and may not require additional consent for specific studies. This classification is commonly applied to retrospective studies where identifiability has been removed and no interaction with individuals occurs.
The 21st Century Cures Act has further shaped the landscape by promoting data sharing while requiring appropriate safeguards. These evolving regulations reflect ongoing tensions between promoting scientific progress and protecting individual rights.
European Union: The GDPR
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union establishes stringent requirements for processing personal data, including health information. Article 9 specifically addresses special categories of data, requiring explicit consent for processing health data with limited exceptions for scientific research. The GDPR’s emphasis on purpose limitation presents particular challenges for biobanks seeking to enable broad future research uses.
International Variations
Globally, consent requirements vary significantly. While some countries have adopted comprehensive frameworks similar to the GDPR (notably the UK with its close analogue to the EU GDPR, adopted after leaving the EU), others maintain minimal regulations or rely primarily on institutional policies. This regulatory heterogeneity creates challenges for international research collaborations and data sharing initiatives. These disparities affect global cancer research networks and biobanking initiatives.
Considerations for Dependent and Underrepresented Populations
Pediatric Biobanking
Biobanking involving children presents unique consent challenges since minors cannot legally provide informed consent. Parental permission is typically required, with assent from the child when developmentally appropriate. As children mature, questions arise about whether and how to obtain re-consent. Pediatric biobanks must balance respect for developing autonomy with the scientific value of longitudinal data collection.
Indigenous Populations and Cultural Considerations
Indigenous communities have experienced historical exploitation in research, leading to heightened concerns about biobanking. Many indigenous groups emphasize community-level consent in addition to individual authorization. Tribal governance of biospecimens and data has emerged as an important model protecting collective interests while enabling beneficial research partnerships.
Mental Capacity and Proxy Consent
For individuals with limited decision-making capacity, proxy consent mechanisms enable research participation while providing appropriate protections. However, determining when proxy consent is appropriate and who should serve as decision-makers involves complex ethical considerations about autonomy, best interests, and previously expressed wishes.
Practical Challenges in Consent Implementation
Comprehension and Health Literacy
Research consistently shows that many participants do not fully understand consent documents due to complex language, medical terminology, and abstract concepts. Even well-educated participants may misunderstand key aspects of biobank participation, such as commercialization possibilities and data sharing practices.
Administrative Burden and Standardization
Managing consent across large-scale biobanking operations presents significant administrative challenges. Non-standardized consent forms across institutions complicate multi-site research, increase costs, and introduce potential compliance risks. Efforts to develop standardized consent templates, such as those led by the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER), aim to address these challenges.
Balancing Detail with Accessibility
Consent processes must balance comprehensive disclosure with readability. Overly detailed consent forms may overwhelm participants, while simplistic explanations risk inadequate disclosure. Using layered consent approaches—providing essential information followed by optional detailed explanations—can improve comprehension while meeting regulatory requirements.
Technological Solutions and Future Directions
Electronic Consent Platforms
Digital consent platforms are increasingly replacing paper-based processes, offering multimedia explanations, comprehension assessments, and more engaging formats. Well-designed electronic consent systems can improve understanding and satisfaction while streamlining administrative processes.
Machine Readable Consent Standards
Standard ontologies and well-defined technical descriptions of consent concepts, such as in the Global Alliance for Genomic Health’s Machine Readable Consent Guidance (GA4GH MRCG), can enable researchers to pursue large-scale analysis drawing from multiple sources, while respecting detailed individual consent.
Blockchain for Consent Management
Blockchain technology offers potential solutions for transparent, immutable consent records. These systems could enable individuals to grant and revoke access permissions while maintaining a verifiable audit trail. Blockchain-based consent management may enhance security, interoperability, and participant control, though implementation challenges remain substantial.
Artificial Intelligence and Consent Comprehension
Emerging AI applications aim to improve consent processes by personalizing information delivery based on individual comprehension levels. Natural language processing can simplify complex medical terminology, while interactive systems can address specific participant questions. These technologies may help bridge comprehension gaps, particularly for individuals with limited health literacy.
Conclusion
Participant consent in biobanking and EHR data sharing exists at the intersection of ethical principles, regulatory requirements, practical implementation challenges, and technological innovation. The field continues to evolve toward more participant-centered approaches that balance respect for individual autonomy with the societal benefits of medical research.
As biobanking and data sharing networks expand globally, developing transparent, accessible, and adaptive consent processes will be essential for maintaining public trust and enabling ethically sound research. Ongoing stakeholder engagement will be crucial in navigating the complex landscape of consent in an era of rapidly advancing biomedical research.
References
- Beskow, L. M., & Dean, E. (2008). Informed consent for biorepositories: assessing prospective participants’ understanding and opinions. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 17(6), 1440–1451.
- Cohen, I. G., & Mello, M. M. (2018). HIPAA and protecting health information in the 21st century. JAMA, 320(3), 231–232.
- Fox, K., Claw, K. G., Garrison, N. A., et al. (2020). The fabric of Indigenous data sovereignty. In Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy (pp. 55–71). Routledge.
- Grady, C., Eckstein, L., Berkman, B., et al. (2019). Broad consent for research with biological samples: workshop conclusions. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(4), 3–13.
- Hens, K., Lévesque, E., & Dierickx, K. (2022). Children’s biobanks: a review of normative principles and practical guidelines. Bioethics, 36(2), 211–224.
- Kaye, J., Teare, H. J. A., Bell, J., et al. (2021). Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. European Journal of Human Genetics, 29(12), 1691–1694.
- Kuo, T. T., Kim, H. E., & Ohno-Machado, L. (2017). Blockchain distributed ledger technologies for biomedical and health care applications. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(6), 1211–1220.
- Lawler, M., Morris, A. D., Sullivan, R., et al. (2018). A roadmap for restoring trust in big data. The Lancet Oncology, 19(8), 1014–1015.
- Marelli, L., & Testa, G. (2018). Scrutinizing the EU General Data Protection Regulation: new possibilities for genetic research? Science, 360(6388), 496–498.
- Peterson, G. M., Naunton, M., & Deeks, L. S. (2021). Capacity, consent, and decision-making in biobank research. Ethics & Human Research, 43(4), 37–45.
- Rothstein, M. A. (2015). Ethical issues in big data health research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43(2), 425–429.
- Sanderson, S. C., Brothers, K. B., Mercaldo, N. D., et al. (2023). Public preferences regarding return of results from biobanking research. JAMA Network Open, 6(1), e2251674.
- Tindana, P., Molyneux, S., Bull, S., & Parker, M. (2021). ‘It is an entrustment’: considerations for developing effective community engagement in biobanking research in Africa. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(12), e89.
- Williams, H., Spencer, K., Sanders, C., et al. (2022). Public understanding and perceptions of biobanking: a systematic review. European Journal of Human Genetics, 30(8), 961–969.
- Willison, D. J., Swinton, M., Schwartz, L., et al. (2019). Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: insights from a public dialogue. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 47(3), 408–416.
- Wright, D. R., Zimmerman, J. L., & Hollingsworth, K. G. (2022). Applications of artificial intelligence to improve informed consent processes. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 33(1), 3–14.
