IntroductionInternational sharing of health data opens the door to the study of the so-called ‘Big Data’, which holds great promise for improving patient-centred care. Failure of recent data sharing initiatives indicates an urgent need to invest in societal trust in researchers and institutions. Key to an informed understanding of such a ‘social license’ is identifying the views patients and the public may hold with regard to data sharing for health research.MethodsWe performed a narrative review of the empirical evidence addressing patients’ and public views and attitudes towards the use of health data for research purposes. The literature databases PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched in April 2019 to identify relevant publications. Patients’ and public attitudes were extracted from selected references and thematically categorised.ResultsTwenty-seven papers were included for review, including both qualitative and quantitative studies and systematic reviews. Results suggest widespread—though conditional—support among patients and the public for data sharing for health research. Despite the fact that participants recognise actual or potential benefits of data research, they expressed concerns about breaches of confidentiality and potential abuses of the data. Studies showed agreement on the following conditions: value, privacy, risk minimisation, data security, transparency, control, information, trust, responsibility and accountability.ConclusionsOur results indicate that a social license for data-intensive health research cannot simply be presumed. To strengthen the social license, identified conditions ought to be operationalised in a governance framework that incorporates the diverse patient and public values, needs and interests.

This is the introductory paper in a series of eight papers. In this series, we integrate the theoretical design options with the practice of conducting pragmatic trials. For most new market-approved treatments, the clinical evidence is insufficient to fully guide physicians and policy makers in choosing the optimal treatment for their patients. Pragmatic trials can fill this gap, by providing evidence on the relative effectiveness of a treatment strategy in routine clinical practice, already in an early phase of development, while maintaining the strength of randomized controlled trials. Selecting the setting, study population, mode of intervention, comparator, and outcome are crucial in designing pragmatic trials. In combination with monitoring and data collection that does not change routine care, this will enable appropriate generalization to the target patient group in clinical practice. To benefit from the full potential of pragmatic trials, there is a need for guidance and tools in designing these studies while ensuring operational feasibility. This paper introduces the concept of pragmatic trial design. The complex interplay between pragmatic design options, feasibility, stakeholder acceptability, validity, precision, and generalizability will be clarified. In this way, balanced design choices can be made in pragmatic trials with an optimal chance of success in practice.

Aim: Narrative medicine has been promoted as an innovative and effective means of stimulating medical students' professional development by teaching them to approach their patients' experiences of illness with more understanding and compassion. This systematic literature review aims to answer the following question: what evidence of effect is available in the literature about models for teaching narrative medicine? Methods: We conducted a narrative review of 36 articles and used the Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Global Scale and Kirkpatrick Scale for strength and importance of evidence to categorize reported assessment strategies and to evaluate the effectiveness of their narrative medicine programs. Results: We found evidence that narrative medicine is an effective pedagogic tool with a clear and replicable structure and methodology. We also determined that a positive impact could be measured when pertaining to participation and modification of attitudes, knowledge, and skills. However, unequivocal evidence of the effect of narrative medicine on students' behavior or ongoing interaction with colleagues and patients is still lacking. Conclusion: While many recent publications describe the goals and virtues of a narrative-based approach, more research is needed to determine whether or not there is an ideological consensus undergirding this approach. In addition, it is still unclear whether the long-term impact of narrative medicine classroom interventions are felt by patients, or whether such interventions positively impact patient care.