Abstracts
Abstract
Online resources offer a uniquely efficient way of sharing health research with scientists and the public. Using web portals to make results and study information available to diverse audiences could work to accelerate research translation and empower patients to play a more active role in their care. But using online tools to broadly share health information raises several challenging ethical and regulatory questions. Issues such as equity, privacy, and patient empowerment may create challenges for regulators, portal developers, as well as researchers. It is additionally unclear whether web portals designed to facilitate access to research results and general health information will be regulated as medical devices under emerging regimes that control software with medical purposes. This paper aims to comparatively address whether online therapeutic portals for sharing health research are likely to be regulated in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. We find that though these jurisdictions have each taken recent steps to regulate software as medical devices, the applicable regimes will generally not capture online portals for sharing health research. Though online portals for sharing health research are probably unregulated in many (if not most) jurisdictions, agencies have nevertheless signalled their concerns regarding several important ethical considerations (such as equity, transparency, and safety), to which portal developers and researchers should be attentive and respond. We describe here one set of issues highlighted by regulators – that is, efficiency, equity, transparency, confidentiality, communication, empowerment, training, and safety & efficacy – and consider how to best guide the design of online portals in a context of regulatory uncertainty.
Keywords:
- regulation,
- ethics,
- web portals,
- health information
Résumé
Les ressources en ligne offrent un moyen particulièrement efficace de partager la recherche en santé avec les scientifiques et le public. L’utilisation de portails web pour mettre les résultats et les informations sur les études à la disposition de divers publics pourrait accélérer l’application des résultats de la recherche et permettre aux patients de jouer un rôle plus actif dans leurs soins. Cependant, l’utilisation d’outils en ligne pour partager largement des informations sur la santé soulève plusieurs questions éthiques et réglementaires délicates. Des questions telles que l’équité, la protection de la vie privée et l’autonomisation des patients peuvent poser des problèmes aux organismes de réglementation, aux concepteurs de portails et aux chercheurs. En outre, il n’est pas certain que les portails web conçus pour faciliter l’accès aux résultats de la recherche et aux informations générales sur la santé soient réglementés en tant que dispositifs médicaux dans le cadre des régimes émergents qui contrôlent les logiciels à des fins médicales. Le présent document a pour but d’examiner de manière comparative si les portails thérapeutiques en ligne destinés au partage de la recherche en matière de santé sont susceptibles d’être réglementés au Canada, aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni et en France. Nous constatons que, bien que ces juridictions aient toutes pris des mesures récentes pour réglementer les logiciels en tant que dispositifs médicaux, les régimes applicables n’englobent généralement pas les portails en ligne destinés au partage de la recherche en matière de santé. Bien que les portails en ligne pour le partage de la recherche en santé ne soient probablement pas réglementés dans de nombreuses juridictions (si ce n’est la plupart), les agences ont néanmoins fait part de leurs préoccupations concernant plusieurs considérations éthiques importantes (telles que l’équité, la transparence et la sécurité), auxquelles les développeurs de portails et les chercheurs doivent être attentifs et répondre. Nous décrivons ici un ensemble de questions soulignées par les régulateurs – à savoir l’efficacité, l’équité, la transparence, la confidentialité, la communication, la responsabilisation, la formation, la sécurité et l’efficacité – et examinons comment guider au mieux la conception des portails en ligne dans un contexte d’incertitude réglementaire.
Mots-clés :
- réglementation,
- éthique,
- portails web,
- information sur la santé
Appendices
Bibliography
- 1. Swee-Lin Tan S, Goonawardene N. Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: a systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2017;19(1):e9.
- 2. Van den Bulck SA, Hermens R, Slegers K, Vandenberghe B, Goderis G, Vankrunkelsven P. Designing a patient portal for patient-centered care: cross-sectional survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2018;20(10):e269.
- 3. Lang M, Lemieux S, Hébert J, Sauvageau G, Zawati MH. Legal and Ethical considerations for the design and use of web portals for researchers, clinicians, and patients: scoping literature review. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2021;23(11):e26450.
- 4. Black L, Avard D, Zawati MH, Knoppers BM, Hébert J, Sauvageau G, Leucegene Project. Funding considerations for the disclosure of genetic incidental findings in biobank research. Clinical Genetics. 2013;84(5):397-406.
- 5. Kalkman S, Mostert M, Gerlinger C, van Delden JJM, van Thiel GJMW. Responsible data sharing in international health research: a systematic review of principles and norms. BMC Medical Ethics. 2019;20:21.
- 6. Health Canada. Safe Medical Devices in Canada. Ottawa: Medical Devices Bureau; 2007.
- 7. Food & Drug Administration. Overview of Device Regulation. Washington: Center for Devices and Radiological Health; 2020.
- 8. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Regulating medical devices in the UK. London: HM Government; 31 Dec 2020.
- 9. L’Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé. L’ANSEM en bref. 2019.
- 10. Minssen T, Mimler M, Mak V. When does stand-alone software qualify as a medical device in the European Union?-The CJEU’s decision in Snitem and what it implies for the next generation of medical devices. Medical Law Review. 2020;28(3):615-24.
- 11. International Medical Device Regulators Forum. About IMDRF.
- 12. Food & Drug Administration. Software as a Medical Device (SAMD): Clinical Evaluation: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2017.
- 13. Council of the European Communities. Directive 93/42 concerning medical devices. No L 169/1; 1993.
- 14. Haute Autorité de Santé. Functional classification, according to their intended use, of digital solutions used in the context of medical and paramedical care. Saint-Denis: HAS; 4 Feb 2021.
- 15. Health Canada. Guidance Document: Software as a Medical Device (SaMD): Classification Examples. Ottawa: Medical Devices Bureau; 3 Oct 2019 (rev. 15 Nov 2022)
- 16. Food & Drug Administration. Digital Health Innovation Action Plan. Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.
- 17. Department of Health & Social Care. A Guide to Good Practice for Digital and Data-Driven Health Technologies. London: HM Government; 19 Jan 2021.
- 18. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Report from Canada’s Economic Strategy Tables: The Innovation and Competitiveness Imperative: Health & Science. Ottawa: ISEDC; 5 Nov 2018.
- 19. Haute Autorité de Santé. Numérique: Quelle (R)evolution. Saint-Denis: HAS; 2 Jul 2019.
- 20. Cavallaro F, Lugg-Widger F, Cannings-John R, Harron K. Reducing barriers to data access for research in the public interest—lessons from covid-19. BMJ Opinion. 6 Jul 2020.
- 21. Health Canada. Notice: Health Canada’s Approach to Digital Health Technologies. 18-104077-808. 10 Apr 2018.
- 22. Food & Drug Administration. Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases to Support Clinical Validity for Genetic and Genomic-Based In Vitro Diagnostics. Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Apr 2018.
- 23. Health Canada. What we heard: A summary of scanning and consultations on what’s next for health product regulation. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 10 Apr 2019.
- 24. Department of Health & Social Care. The Future of Healthcare: Our Vision for Digital, Data and Technology in Health and Care. London: HM Government; 17 Oct 2018.
- 25. Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé. Stratégie nationale e-santé 2020. Paris: MSS; 2016 (rev. 18 Mar 2022).
- 26. Gille F, Smith S, Mays N. Why public trust in health care systems matters and deserves greater research attention. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2015;20(1):62-4.