Record linkage of population-based cohort data from minors with national register data : A scoping review and comparative legal analysis of four European countries

Funding Information: We would like to acknowledge Evert-Ben van Veen from the MLC Foundation, Dagelijkse Groenmarkt 2, 2513 AL Den Haag, the Netherlands. The results on the country-specific text on the Netherlands was based on his contribution. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Doetsch JN et al.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.Peer reviewe

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Strengthening resilience of healthcare systems by focusing on perinatal and maternal healthcare access and quality

[No abstract available]The study received funding by the Foundation for Science and Technology—FCT (Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education), under the Unidade de Investigação em Epidemiologia—Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto (EPIUnit) and the Laboratório Associado (ITR) UIDB/04750/2020 and LA/P/0064/2020. This study was also funded by the external PhD programme of Maastricht University (UM), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht, The Netherlands. The salary of JD was paid during the initial phase of the study by the RECAP preterm project which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 733280

Record linkage as a vital key player for the COVID-19 syndemic - The call for legal harmonization to overcome research challenges

Peer reviewe

Record linkage of population-based cohort data from minors with national register data:a scoping review and comparative legal analysis of four European countries

Abstract 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

Using Digital Tools to Study the Health of Adults Born Preterm at a Large Scale: e-Cohort Pilot Study

BackgroundPreterm birth is a global health concern. Its adverse consequences may persist throughout the life course, exerting a potentially heavy burden on families, health systems, and societies. In high-income countries, the first children who benefited from improved care are now adults entering middle age. However, there is a clear gap in the knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of individuals born preterm. ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the feasibility of recruiting and following up an e-cohort of adults born preterm worldwide and provide estimations of participation, characteristics of participants, the acceptability of questions, and the quality of data collected. MethodsWe implemented a prospective, open, observational, and international e-cohort pilot study (Health of Adult People Born Preterm—an e-Cohort Pilot Study [HAPP-e]). Inclusion criteria were being an adult (aged ≥18 years), born preterm (<37 weeks of gestation), having internet access and an email address, and understanding at least 1 of the available languages. A large, multifaceted, and multilingual communication strategy was established. Between December 2019 and June 2021, inclusion and repeated data collection were performed using a secured web platform. We provided descriptive statistics regarding participation in the e-cohort, namely, the number of persons who registered on the platform, signed the consent form, initiated and completed the baseline questionnaire, and initiated and completed the follow-up questionnaire. We also described the main characteristics of the HAPP-e participants and provided an assessment of the quality of the data and the acceptability of sensitive questions. ResultsAs of December 31, 2020, a total of 1004 persons had registered on the platform, leading to 527 accounts with a confirmed email and 333 signed consent forms. A total of 333 participants initiated the baseline questionnaire. All participants were invited to follow-up, and 35.7% (119/333) consented to participate, of whom 97.5% (116/119) initiated the follow-up questionnaire. Completion rates were very high both at baseline (296/333, 88.9%) and at follow-up (112/116, 96.6%). This sample of adults born preterm in 34 countries covered a wide range of sociodemographic and health characteristics. The gestational age at birth ranged from 23+6 to 36+6 weeks (median 32, IQR 29-35 weeks). Only 2.1% (7/333) of the participants had previously participated in a cohort of individuals born preterm. Women (252/333, 75.7%) and highly educated participants (235/327, 71.9%) were also overrepresented. Good quality data were collected thanks to validation controls implemented on the web platform. The acceptability of potentially sensitive questions was excellent, as very few participants chose the “I prefer not to say” option when available. ConclusionsAlthough we identified room for improvement in specific procedures, this pilot study confirmed the great potential for recruiting a large and diverse sample of adults born preterm worldwide, thereby advancing research on adults born preterm

Increased interaction and procedural flexibility favoured participation : study across European cohorts of preterm born individuals

Objective: To understand participation and attrition phenomena variability in European cohorts of individuals born preterm through in-depth exploration of the interplay of situational elements involved. Methods: Multi-situated qualitative design, using focus groups, semi-structured interviews and collaborative visual methodology with a purposive sample of adults born preterm, parents and professionals (n = 124) from eight cohorts in seven European countries. Results: Most cohort participants were motivated by altruism/solidarity and gratitude/sense of duty to reciprocate (only absent in adults aged 19 – 21), followed by expectation of direct benefit to one's health and knowledge amongst participating adults. Common deterrents were perceived failure in reciprocity as in insufficient/inadequate interaction and information sharing, and postal questionnaires. Combining multipurpose, flexible strategies for contact and assessment, reminders, face-to-face and shorter periodicity and not simply adding retention strategies or financial incentives favoured participation. Professionals’ main challenges entailed resources, funding and, European societal changes related to communication and geopolitical environment. Conclusion: Retention would benefit from tailoring inclusive strategies throughout the cohorts’ life cycle and consistent promotion of reciprocal altruistic research goals. Investing in regular interaction, flexibility in procedures, participant involvement and return of results can help mitigate attrition as well as considering mothers as main facilitators to participating children and impaired adults.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio