Updates are available Correction dated 2025-02-10
Click to view Correction: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12376-7
-
Authors
Aye, Phyu Sin
Bartholomew, Karen
Walsh, Michael
Pritchard, Kathy
Pierce, Maree
Richards, Jenny
Chambers, Erin
Haggie, Aroha
Solomon, Jesse
Lord, Gabrielle
Soloai, Tiffany
Symons, Lorraine
Tipene, Roimata
Jansen, Rawiri McKree
- License Information
-
More Information
Article History
Received: 29 April 2024
Accepted: 27 December 2024
First Online: 13 January 2025
Change Date: 10 February 2025
Change Type: Correction
Change Details: A Correction to this paper has been published:
Change Details: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12376-7
Declarations
:
: The need for ethics approval was waived by the Health and Disability Ethics Committees; however, as part of the protocol preparation ethical issues were considered and documented, including mitigations, as part of good practice. These issues included privacy and confidentiality, the potential to cause distress (e.g., if contacting patients who had a recent cancer diagnosis or who had passed away), cultural safety and addressing inequities. Under the New Zealand Privacy Act (2020) and associated Health Information Privacy Code [], the project was considered justifiable meeting an exemption (allowing waiver of consent for the project) because women who enrolled with primary care organisations sign a consent for offer of community services, including population screening. There was further support for this justification using the provisions for offer of service under Sect. 22F of the New Zealand Health Act [], which allows health agencies to share data for the purpose of the offer of a health service. A formal Privacy Impact Assessment [] was undertaken. The project was approved by the BSA Programme, the Ministry of Health Data Governance Group, the local Privacy and Security Governance Group (including legal and privacy representation), the Regional Privacy Advisory Group, the Metropolitan Auckland Data Stewardship Group, the Metropolitan Auckland Clinical Governance Forum, and district locality processes at each site. The participants were informed of the project at the time of contact, with the opportunity to decline enrolment or screening, and a standardised complaints process was agreed and documented should this be required. Our study was also guided by the Declaration of Helsinki ethical principles for medical research involving human participants [].
: Not applicable.
: The authors declare no competing interests.
