BackgroundElectronic administrative data exist in several domains which, if linked, are potentially useful for research. However, benefits from data linkage should be considered alongside risks such as the threat to privacy. Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a birth cohort study. The Project to Enhance ALSPAC through Record Linkage (PEARL) was established to enrich the ALSPAC resource through linkage between ALSPAC participants and routine sources of health and social data. Qualitative research was incorporated in the PEARL study to examine participants’ views about data linkage and inform approaches to information sharing. This paper focusses on issues of consent.MethodsDigitally recorded interviews were conducted with 55 participants aged 17–19 years. Terms and processes relating to consent, anonymization and data linkage were explained to interviewees. Scenarios were used to prompt consideration of linking different sources of data, and whether consent should be requested. Interview recordings were fully transcribed. Thematic analysis was undertaken using the Framework approach.ResultsParticipant views on data linkage appeared to be most influenced by: considerations around the social sensitivity of the research question, and; the possibility of tangible health benefits in the public interest. Some participants appeared unsure about the effectiveness of anonymization, or did not always view effective anonymization as making consent unnecessary. This was related to notions of ownership of personal information and etiquette around asking permission for secondary use. Despite different consent procedures being explained, participants tended to equate consent with ‘opt-in’ consent through which participants are ‘asked’ if their data can be used for a specific study. Participants raising similar concerns came to differing conclusions about whether consent was needed. Views changed when presented with different scenarios, and were sometimes inconsistent.ConclusionsFindings from this study question the validity of ‘informed consent’ as a cornerstone of good governance, and the extent to which potential research participants understand different types of consent and what they are consenting, or not consenting, to. Pragmatic, imaginative and flexible approaches are needed if research using data linkage is to successfully realise its potential for public good without undermining public trust in the research process.

ObjectivesPrimary care records have traditionally served the needs and demands of clinicians rather than those of the patient. In England, general practices must promote and offer registered patients online access to their primary care record, and research has shown benefits to both patients and clinicians of doing so. Despite this, we know little about patients’ needs and expectations regarding online access to their record. This study explored what patients and carers want from online access to their electronic primary care health record, their experiences of using it, how they would like to interact with their record and what support they may need.DesignFocus groups and semistructured interviews using purposive sampling to achieve a good sociodemographic spread. Interviews were digitally audiorecorded, transcribed and coded using an established thematic approach.SettingFocus groups and interviews were conducted in community settings in the UK.ParticipantsFifty-four individuals who were either eligible for the National Health Service Health Check, living with more than one long-term condition or caring for someone else.ResultsParticipants views regarding online access were categorised into four main themes: awareness, capabilities, consequences and inevitability. Participants felt online access should be better promoted, and suggested a number of additional functions, such as better integration with other parts of the healthcare system. It was felt that online access could improve quality of care (eg, through increased transparency) but also have potential negative consequences (eg, by replacing face to face contact). A move towards more online records access was considered inevitable, but participants noted a need for additional support and training in using the online record, especially to ensure that health inequalities are not exacerbated.ConclusionsDiscussions with patients and carers about their views of accessing online records have provided useful insights into future directions and potential improvements for this service.

Acknowledgements:Thanks to Rona Campbell, Karen Throsby and two anonymous referees for comments on this paper. We would also like to thank those who participated in our research projects. AbstractDisability is as much a factor in interactional dynamics as ethnicity, age, gender or sexuality, and therefore its impact on the processes around qualitative research warrants much more systematic attention. Disabled researchers are not confined to disability studies research, although most accounts of the impact of disability on the research process have, thus far, been undertaken within this field. This paper moves beyond this narrow focus to consider the impact of disabled identities and the embodied experiences of impairment on studies involving, primarily, non-disabled people. By reflecting on our experiences as visibly disabled researchers, we highlight some of the practical, ethical and conceptual dilemmas we encountered. Impairments may assist rapport building with participants, but also introduce complex dilemmas concerning whether, when and how to disclose them, and the consequences of doing so. We highlight the centrality of the visibility of the disabled body in mediating these 2 dilemmas, and its part in constraining our responses to them. While we value our commitment to positive readings of disability, we demonstrate that disabled researchers nevertheless undertake research in contexts where disability is assigned meanings disabled people may not share. We argue that all researchers should attend to their own 'body signifiers' (whether in relation to ethnicity, wealth, gender, age etc.) and embodied experiences of research processes, as these are integral to research outcomes, the ethics of research, and are a means by which to address power differentials between researcher and participant. This paper addresses a gap in the literature, using our experiences of research to highlight the negotiations and dilemmas faced by visibly disabled researchers. Negotiations of identity prompted by the disabled body in the research process require consideration and should not be ignored.

No abstract