Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Informants a potential threat to confidentiality in small studies

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Providing proper protection of confidentiality, by preventing personal data from falling into the hands of third parties, is one of the core responsibilities of researchers towards research participants. However, even if researchers do their best in this regard, it does not guarantee that breaches of confidentiality will be avoided. This paper addresses the case of small qualitative studies, arguing that researchers cannot guarantee their informants’ confidentiality, since that confidentiality may be compromised by actions taken by the informants themselves. In order to reduce the risk of this specific threat to confidentiality, additional precautions need to be taken. Some potential solutions to the problem are suggested and discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. The complexities of legal regulation for this purpose and the pros and cons of specific legislations cannot be discussed here. One specific aspect in the US context, confidentiality certificates, has recently been discussed (Adinoff et al. 2013). For a British perspective, see Lowman (2013).

References

  • Adinoff, B., R.R. Conley, S.F. Taylor, and L.L. Chezem. 2013. Protecting confidentiality in human research. American Journal of Psychiatry 170(5): 466–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2008. Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, S., and A. Bryman (eds.). 2004. Understanding research for social policy and practice: themes, methods and approaches. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel, E.J., D. Wendler, and C. Grady. 2000. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 283(20): 2701–2711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, S., and G. Helgesson. 2005. Potential harms, anonymization, and the right to withdraw consent to biobank research. European Journal of Human Genetics 13: 1071–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, I. 2003. Ethics in research. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, A., E. Howlett, D. Brady, and J. Drennan. 2005. The focus group method: insights from focus group interviews on sexual health on adolescents. Social Science and Medicine 61: 2588–2599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, K. 2009. Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 19(11): 1632–1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. 1993. Doing research on sensitive topics. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowman, J. 2013. The betrayal of research confidentiality in British sociology. Research Ethics. Epub. doi: 10.1177/1747016113481145.

  • Masca, N., P.R. Burton, and N.A. Sheehan. 2011. Participant identification in genetic association studies: Improved methods and practical implications. International Journal of Epidemiology 40: 1629–1642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B. 2010. Protecting privacy and confidentiality in environmental health research. Ethics in Biology Engineering and Medicine 1: 285–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriquez, L., L.D. Brooks, J.H. Greenberg, and E.D. Green. 2013. The complexities of genomic identifiability. Science 339: 275–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, J. 1975. The right to privacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs 4(4): 295–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hoonard, W. (ed.). 2002. Walking the tightrope: ethical issues for qualitative researchers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiles, R., G. Crow, S. Heath, and V. Charles. 2008. The management of confidentiality and anonymity in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11(5): 417–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wjst, M. 2010. Caught you: Threats to confidentiality due to the public release of large-scale genetic data sets. BMC Medical Ethics 11: 21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association. 2013. Declaration of Helsinki—ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 2013 revision. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Niels Lynöe and Tomas Månsson, both at the Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, for constructive criticism of an earlier version of this paper.

Conflicts of interests

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics (CHE), Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden

    Gert Helgesson

Authors
  1. Gert Helgesson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gert Helgesson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Helgesson, G. Informants a potential threat to confidentiality in small studies. Med Health Care and Philos 18, 149–152 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9579-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9579-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation