Cancer Epidemiology
Volume 34, Issue 2 , Pages 122-130 , April 2010

Do the Japanese feel more suspicious about cancer registration than the British?

,Accepted 2 February 2010.

References 

  1. Okamoto N. A history of the cancer registration system in Japan. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13(April (2)):90–96
  2. Sobue T. Current activities and future directions of the cancer registration system in Japan. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13(April (2)):97–101
  3. In:  Curado MP,  Edwards B,  Shin HR,  Storm H,  Ferlay J,  Heanue M, et al. editor. Cancer incidence in five continents. vol. IX:Lyon: IARC; 2007;
  4. Tanaka H. Features of the USA Cancer Registries Amendment Act viewed from the status quo in Japan. Nippon Koshu Eisei Zasshi. 2006;53(January (1)):8–19
  5. Barrett G, Cassell JA, Peacock JL, Coleman MP. National survey of British public's views on use of identifiable medical data by the National Cancer Registry. Brit Med J. 2006;332(May (7549)):1068–1072
  6. Cabinet Office Government of Japan. Public opinion polls on cancer control. Tokyo; 2007 [contract no. document number].
  7. Suda M. Expectation for cancer control measures progress. Mainichi Newspaper; 2007.10.19.
  8. Social Survey Information Research Group. A study of the Japanese national character: the twelfth nationwide survey. Tokyo: Research Innovation Center, The Institute of Statistical Mathematics; 2008 [contract no. document number].
  9. White Paper on Information and Communications in Japan. Tokyo: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications; 2009 [contract no. document number].
  10. Cabinet Office Government of Japan. Public opinion polls on personal information protection. Tokyo; 2006 [contract no. document number].
  11. Sankila R, Martinez C, Parkin DM, Storm H, Teppo L. Informed consent in cancer registries. Lancet. 2001;357(May (9267)):1536
  12. Illman J. Cancer registries: should informed consent be required?. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(September (17)):1269–1270
  13. Verity C, Nicoll A. Consent, confidentiality, and the threat to public health surveillance. Brit Med J. 2002;324(May (7347)):1210–1213
  14. Rahu M, McKee M. Epidemiological research labelled as a violation of privacy: the case of Estonia. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(June (3)):678–682
  15. Deapen D. Cancer surveillance and information: balancing public health with privacy and confidentiality concerns (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17(June (5)):633–637
  16. Beskow LM, Sandler RS, Weinberger M. Research recruitment through US central cancer registries: balancing privacy and scientific issues. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(November (11)):1920–1926
  17. Storm H, Brewster DH, Coleman MP, Deapen D, Oshima A, Threlfall T, et al. Guidelines for confidentiality and cancer registration. Br J Cancer. 2005;92(June (11)):2095–2096
  18. Saul H. Privacy and cancer registries in Europe. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(January (1)):3

PII: S1877-7821(10)00020-2

doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2010.02.002

Cancer Epidemiology
Volume 34, Issue 2 , Pages 122-130 , April 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution