Patient perspectives on the linkage of health data for research: Insights from an online patient community questionnaire

Case study on communicating with research ethics committees about minimizing risk through software: an application for record linkage in secondary data analysis

Objective

In retrospective secondary data analysis studies, researchers often seek waiver of consent from institutional Review Boards (IRB) and minimize risk by utilizing complex software. Yet, little is known about the perspectives of IRB experts on these approaches. To facilitate effective communication about risk mitigation strategies using software, we conducted two studies with IRB experts to co-create appropriate language when describing a software to IRBs.

Materials and Methods

We conducted structured focus groups with IRB experts to solicit ideas on questions regarding benefits, risks, and informational needs. Based on these results, we developed a template IRB application and template responses for a generic study using privacy-enhancing software. We then conducted a three-round Delphi study to refine the template IRB application and the template responses based on expert panel feedback. To facilitate participants' deliberation, we shared the revisions and a summary of participants' feedback during each Delphi round.

Results

11 experts in two focus groups generated 13 ideas on risks, benefits, and informational needs. 17 experts participated in the Delphi study with 13 completing all rounds. Most agreed that privacy-enhancing software will minimize risk, but regardless all secondary data studies have an inherent risk of unexpected disclosures. The majority (84.6%) noted that subjects in retrospective secondary data studies experience no greater risks than the risks experienced in ordinary life in the modern digital society. Hence, all retrospective data-only studies with no contact with subjects would be minimal risk studies.

Conclusion

First, we found fundamental disagreements in how some IRB experts view risks in secondary data research. Such disagreements are consequential because they can affect determination outcomes and might suggest IRBs at different institutions might come to different conclusions regarding similar study protocols. Second, the highest ranked risks and benefits of privacy-enhancing software in our study were societal rather than individual. The highest ranked benefits were facilitating more research and promoting responsible data governance practices. The highest ranked risks were risk of invalid results from systematic user error or erroneous algorithms. These societal considerations are typically more characteristic of public health ethics as opposed to the bioethical approach of research ethics, possibly reflecting the difficulty applying a bioethical approach (eg, informed consent) in secondary data studies. Finally, the development of privacy-enhancing technology for secondary data research depends on effective communication and collaboration between the privacy experts and technology developers. Privacy is a complex issue that requires a holistic approach that is best addressed through privacy-by-design principles. Privacy expert participation is important yet often neglected in this design process. This study suggests best practice strategies for engaging the privacy community through co-developing companion documents for software through participatory design to facilitate transparency and communication. In this case study, the final template IRB application and responses we released with the open-source software can be easily adapted by researchers to better communicate with their IRB when using the software. This can help increase responsible data governance practices when many software developers are not research ethics experts.

Patient and Public Willingness to Share Personal Health Data for Third-Party or Secondary Uses: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

International advances in information communication, eHealth, and other digital health technologies have led to significant expansions in the collection and analysis of personal health data. However, following a series of high-profile data sharing scandals and the emergence of COVID-19, critical exploration of public willingness to share personal health data remains limited, particularly for third-party or secondary uses.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to explore factors that affect public willingness to share personal health data for third-party or secondary uses.

METHODS

A systematic search of 6 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and SocINDEX) was conducted with review findings analyzed using inductive-thematic analysis and synthesized using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

Of the 13,949 papers identified, 135 were included. Factors most commonly identified as a barrier to data sharing from a public perspective included data privacy, security, and management concerns. Other factors found to influence willingness to share personal health data included the type of data being collected (ie, perceived sensitivity); the type of user requesting their data to be shared, including their perceived motivation, profit prioritization, and ability to directly impact patient care; trust in the data user, as well as in associated processes, often established through individual choice and control over what data are shared with whom, when, and for how long, supported by appropriate models of dynamic consent; the presence of a feedback loop; and clearly articulated benefits or issue relevance including valued incentivization and compensation at both an individual and collective or societal level.

CONCLUSIONS

There is general, yet conditional public support for sharing personal health data for third-party or secondary use. Clarity, transparency, and individual control over who has access to what data, when, and for how long are widely regarded as essential prerequisites for public data sharing support. Individual levels of control and choice need to operate within the auspices of assured data privacy and security processes, underpinned by dynamic and responsive models of consent that prioritize individual or collective benefits over and above commercial gain. Failure to understand, design, and refine data sharing approaches in response to changeable patient preferences will only jeopardize the tangible benefits of data sharing practices being fully realized.

Patients' knowledge, preferences, and perspectives about data protection and data control: an exploratory survey

Background: In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) plays a central role in the complex health research legal framework. It aims to protect the fundamental right to the protection of individuals' personal data, while allowing the free movement of such data. However, it has been criticized for challenging the conduct of research. Existing scholarship has paid little attention to the experiences and views of the patient community. The aim of the study was to investigate 1) the awareness and knowledge of patients, carers, and members of patient organizations about the General Data Protection Regulation, 2) their experience with exercising data subject rights, and 3) their understanding of the notion of "data control" and preferences towards various data control tools. Methods: An online survey was disseminated between December 2022 and March 2023. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Answers to open-ended questions were analyzed using the thematic analysis method. Results: In total, 220 individuals from 28 European countries participated. The majority were patients (77%). Most participants had previously heard about the GDPR (90%) but had not exercised any of their data subject rights. Individual data control tools appeared to be marginally more important than collective tools. The willingness of participants to share personal data with data altruism organizations increased if patient representatives would be involved in the decision-making processes of such organizations. Conclusion: The results highlighted the importance of providing in-depth education about data protection. Although participants showed a slight preference towards individual control tools, the reflection based on existing scholarship identified that individual control holds risks that could be mitigated through carefully operationalized collective tools. The discussion of results was used to provide a critical view into the proposed European Health Data Space, which has yet to find a productive balance between individual control and allowing the reuse of personal data for research.

Community views on the secondary use of general practice data: Findings from a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

General practice data, particularly when combined with hospital and other health service data through data linkage, are increasingly being used for quality assurance, evaluation, health service planning and research. In this study, we explored community views on sharing general practice data for secondary purposes, including research, to establish what concerns and conditions need to be addressed in the process of developing a social licence to support such use.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods approach with focus groups (November-December 2021), followed by a cross-sectional survey (March-April 2022).

RESULTS

The participants in this study strongly supported sharing general practice data with the clinicians responsible for their care, and where there were direct benefits for individual patients. Over 90% of survey participants (N = 2604) were willing to share their general practice information to directly support their health care, that is, for the primary purpose of collection. There was less support for sharing data for secondary purposes such as research and health service planning (36% and 45% respectively in broad agreement) or for linking general practice data to data in the education, social services and criminal justice systems (30%-36%). A substantial minority of participants were unsure or could not see how benefits would arise from sharing data for secondary purposes. Participants were concerned about the potential for privacy breaches, discrimination and data misuse and they wanted greater transparency and an opportunity to consent to data release.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that the public may be more concerned about sharing general practice data for secondary purposes than they are about sharing data collected in other settings. Sharing general practice data more broadly will require careful attention to patient and public concerns, including focusing on the factors that will sustain trust and legitimacy in general practice and GPs.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Members of the public were participants in the study. Data produced from their participation generated study findings.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Conceptualizing fairness in the secondary use of health data for research: A scoping review

With the introduction of the European Health Data Space (EHDS), the secondary use of health data for research purposes is attracting more attention. Secondary health data processing promises to address novel research questions, inform the design of future research and improve healthcare delivery generally. To comply with the existing data protection regulations, the secondary data use must be fair, among other things. However, there is no clear understanding of what fairness means in the context of secondary use of health data for scientific research purposes. In response, we conducted a scoping review of argument-based literature to explore how fairness in the secondary use of health data has been conceptualized. A total of 35 publications were included in the final synthesis after abstract and full-text screening. Using an inductive approach and a thematic analysis, our review has revealed that balancing individual and public interests, reducing power asymmetries, setting conditions for commercial involvement, and implementing benefit sharing are essential to guarantee fair secondary use research. The findings of this review can inform current and future research practices and policy development to adequately address concerns about fairness in the secondary use of health data.

Objectives and outcomes of patient-driven innovations published in peer-reviewed journals: a qualitative analysis of publications included in a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the objectives and outcomes of patient-driven innovations that have been published in the scientific literature, focusing on (A) the unmet needs that patient-driven innovations address and (B) the outcomes for patients and healthcare that have been reported.

METHODS

We performed an inductive qualitative content analysis of scientific publications that were included in a scoping review of patient-driven innovations, previously published by our research group. The review was limited to English language publications in peer-reviewed journals, published in the years 2008-2020.

RESULTS

In total, 83 publications covering 21 patient-driven innovations were included in the analysis. Most of the innovations were developed for use on an individual or community level without healthcare involvement. We created three categories of unmet needs that were addressed by these innovations: access to self-care support tools, open sharing of information and knowledge, and patient agency in self-care and healthcare decisions. Eighteen (22%) publications reported outcomes of patient-driven innovations. We created two categories of outcomes: impact on self-care, and impact on peer interaction and healthcare collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

The patient-driven innovations illustrated a diversity of innovative approaches to facilitate patients' and informal caregivers' daily lives, interactions with peers and collaborations with healthcare. As our findings indicate, patients and informal caregivers are central stakeholders in driving healthcare development and research forward to meet the needs that matter to patients and informal caregivers. However, only few studies reported on outcomes of patient-driven innovations. To support wider implementation, more evaluation studies are needed, as well as research into regulatory approval processes, dissemination and governance of patient-driven innovations.

Patients and Members of the Public’s Wishes Regarding Transparency in the Context of Secondary Use of Health Data: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Secondary use of health data has reached unequaled potential to improve health systems governance, knowledge, and clinical care. Transparency regarding this secondary use is frequently cited as necessary to address deficits in trust and conditional support and to increase patient awareness.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to review the current published literature to identify different stakeholders' perspectives and recommendations on what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how and in which situations.

METHODS

Using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review using Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases to locate a broad range of studies published in English or French until November 2022. We included articles reporting a stakeholder's perspective or recommendations of what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how or in which situations. Data were collected and analyzed with an iterative thematic approach using NVivo.

RESULTS

Overall, 178 articles were included in this scoping review. The type of information can be divided into generic and specific content. Generic content includes information on governance and regulatory frameworks, technical aspects, and scientific aims. Specific content includes updates on the use of one's data, return of results from individual tests, information on global results, information on data sharing, and how to access one's data. Recommendations on how to communicate the information focused on frequency, use of various supports, formats, and wording. Methods for communication generally favored broad approaches such as nationwide publicity campaigns, mainstream and social media for generic content, and mixed approaches for specific content including websites, patient portals, and face-to-face encounters. Content should be tailored to the individual as much as possible with regard to length, avoidance of technical terms, cultural competence, and level of detail. Finally, the review outlined 4 major situations where communication was deemed necessary: before a new use of data, when new test results became available, when global research results were released, and in the advent of a breach in confidentiality.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights how different types of information and approaches to communication efforts may serve as the basis for achieving greater transparency. Governing bodies could use the results: to elaborate or evaluate strategies to educate on the potential benefits; to provide some knowledge and control over data use as a form of reciprocity; and as a condition to engage citizens and build and maintain trust. Future work is needed to assess which strategies achieve the greatest outreach while striking a balance between meeting information needs and use of resources.

Attitudes of Mental Health Service Users Toward Storage and Use of Electronic Health Records

OBJECTIVE

Electronic health records (EHRs) are used for both clinical practice and research. Because mental health service users' views are underrepresented in perspectives on EHR use, the authors examined service users' awareness, attitudes, and opinions about EHR data storage and sharing.

METHODS

A mixed-methods, cross-sectional design was used to examine attitudes of 253 Norwegian mental health service users who were recruited online to complete a quantitative and qualitative (free-text) survey about EHR utilization.

RESULTS

Most participants were aware that EHRs were stored (95%) and shared (58%). Most thought that patients benefited from EHR storage (84%), trusted authorities with EHR sharing (71%), were willing to share their EHRs to help others (75%), felt they benefited from EHR sharing (75%), and thought EHR sharing was ethical for health care and research (71%). Fewer were aware of EHR sharing for research (36%), and 62% were aware that shared data were anonymized. Of the participants, 69% recognized privacy risks associated with sharing. Lack of transparency and skepticism about anonymization and misuse of EHR data were concerns and perceived risks. Mental health service users thought that EHRs should be shared for policy development (81%), education and training (85%), improving care quality (89%), research (91%), and clinical decision support (81%).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants were aware of and supported EHR sharing for research and clinical care. They supported sharing to help others and were willing to fully participate in clinical care and research, as well as to share EHR information for their own care, research, and the care of others.

Building from Patient Experiences to Deliver Patient-Focused Healthcare Systems in Collaboration with Patients: A Call to Action

Patients’ experiences of their diagnosis, condition, and treatment (including the impact on their lives), and their experiences surrounding expectations of care, are becoming increasingly important in shaping healthcare systems that meet the evolving needs and priorities of different patient communities over time; this is an ongoing goal of all healthcare stakeholders. Current approaches that capture patient experiences with data are fragmented, resulting in duplication of effort, numerous requests for information, and increased patient burden. Application of patient experience data to inform healthcare decisions is still emerging and there remains an opportunity to align diverse stakeholders on the value of these data to strengthen healthcare systems. Given the collective value of understanding patient experiences across multiple stakeholder groups, we propose a more aligned approach to the collection of patient experience data. This approach is built on the principle that the patients’ experiences are the starting point, and not just something to be considered at the end of the process. It must also be based on meaningful patient engagement, where patients are collaborators and decision makers at each step, thereby ensuring their needs and priorities are accurately reflected. The resulting data and evidence should be made available for all stakeholders, to inform their decision making and healthcare strategies in ways that meet patient priorities. We call for multi-stakeholder collaboration that will deliver healthcare systems and interventions that are better centered around and tailored to patient experiences, and that will help address patients’ unmet needs.

Data sharing in the age of predictive psychiatry: an adolescent perspective

BACKGROUND

Advances in genetics and digital phenotyping in psychiatry have given rise to testing services targeting young people, which claim to predict psychiatric outcomes before difficulties emerge. These services raise several ethical challenges surrounding data sharing and information privacy.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate young people's interest in predictive testing for mental health challenges and their attitudes towards sharing biological, psychosocial and digital data for such purpose.

METHODS

Eighty UK adolescents aged 16-18 years took part in a digital role-play where they played the role of clients of a fictional predictive psychiatry company and chose what sources of personal data they wished to provide for a risk assessment. After the role-play, participants reflected on their choices during a peer-led interview.

FINDINGS

Participants saw multiple benefits in predictive testing services, but were highly selective with regard to the type of data they were willing to share. Largely due to privacy concerns, digital data sources such as social media or Google search history were less likely to be shared than psychosocial and biological data, including school grades and one's DNA. Participants were particularly reluctant to share social media data with schools (but less so with health systems).

CONCLUSIONS

Emerging predictive psychiatric services are valued by young people; however, these services must consider privacy versus utility trade-offs from the perspective of different stakeholders, including adolescents.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Respecting adolescents' need for transparency, privacy and choice in the age of digital phenotyping is critical to the responsible implementation of predictive psychiatric services.

Mining the Data: Exploring Rural Patients' Attitudes about the Use of Their Personal Information in Research

BACKGROUND

This study examines rural patients' perceived importance of knowing or being consulted about researchers' access and use of their personal data (identifiable and de-identified health information, and identifiable and de-identified non-health information) across five scenarios. This study also examines their views on stewardship or governance of their personal information by researchers in their healthcare systems.

METHODS

We conducted a survey by mail. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted across each scenario and type of personal data with the same variables included in each model.

RESULTS

The majority of participants said it was "very important/absolutely essential" to know the purpose of the study, to be asked every time, and to know the policies governing researcher access and use of their identifiable health information. Just over two-thirds of respondents thought it "very important/absolutely essential" to know who serves on the data governance committee and to have a community member serve. Distrust in healthcare organizations was positively correlated with the scenarios while willingness to give permission to donate leftover biological specimens was negatively correlated.

CONCLUSION

Our study findings indicate that the type of personal information being accessed and used generally matters to 1,407 patients living in rural Pennsylvania. We also demonstrate that knowing their healthcare organizations' governance policies and practices for managing their personal data is important to many rural Pennsylvania patients. Biomedical researchers need to recognize and attend to those differences as much as possible in order to expand opportunities for and participation in research by residents of these rural communities.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at.

Jordanian views regarding sharing of medical data for research: A cross-sectional study during COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

In the current study, the views of Jordanian regarding sharing medical reports for research purposes were investigated during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, motivators and barriers regarding sharing of medical records were examined.

METHODS

This observational survey-based cross-sectional study was conducted using an electronic questionnaire during the COVID-19 pandemic (second half of 2020). The questionnaire link was disseminated through two social media platforms (WhatsApp and Facebook), targeting Jordanian adults (age >18 years).

RESULTS

In this study, 1,194 participants agreed to complete the study survey. Results showed that 58.3% of them (n = 696) reported to be willing to share their medical data. while 17.6% of the participants (n = 210) showed hesitancy to share their medical information. The most important motivators as perceived by the study participants were helping other patients who have similar health conditions (n = 995, 83.3%). Moreover, fearing from stigma (n = 753, 63.1%), and the lack of confidence in data security and privacy (n = 728, 61.0%) were among the main barriers preventing participants from sharing their information. Finally, results showed that participants with higher educational level (bachelor or higher) (OR = 0.299, P<0.001), or those living in center of Jordan (OR = 0.270, P<0.001) showed a lower tendency to share their medical data. While participants those who have shared data before showed a higher tendency to share their medical data (OR = 2.524, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this study, many of the participants had a positive attitude towards sharing biomedical data for scientific research during the COVID-19 pandemic, many had doubts in the control over their data. Thus, policymakers and data users should address the concerns and values of patients and understand their preferences in favor of an ethically scrupulous use of data in research.

Considerations for an integrated population health databank in Africa: lessons from global best practices

Background: The rising digitisation and proliferation of data sources and repositories cannot be ignored. This trend expands opportunities to integrate and share population health data. Such platforms have many benefits, including the potential to efficiently translate information arising from such data to evidence needed to address complex global health challenges. There are pockets of quality data on the continent that may benefit from greater integration. Integration of data sources is however under-explored in Africa. The aim of this article is to identify the requirements and provide practical recommendations for developing a multi-consortia public and population health data-sharing framework for Africa.

Methods: We conducted a narrative review of global best practices and policies on data sharing and its optimisation. We searched eight databases for publications and undertook an iterative snowballing search of articles cited in the identified publications. The Leximancer software © enabled content analysis and selection of a sample of the most relevant articles for detailed review. Themes were developed through immersion in the extracts of selected articles using inductive thematic analysis. We also performed interviews with public and population health stakeholders in Africa to gather their experiences, perceptions, and expectations of data sharing.

Results: Our findings described global stakeholder experiences on research data sharing. We identified some challenges and measures to harness available resources and incentivise data sharing.  We further highlight progress made by the different groups in Africa and identified the infrastructural requirements and considerations when implementing data sharing platforms. Furthermore, the review suggests key reforms required, particularly in the areas of consenting, privacy protection, data ownership, governance, and data access.

Conclusions: The findings underscore the critical role of inclusion, social justice, public good, data security, accountability, legislation, reciprocity, and mutual respect in developing a responsive, ethical, durable, and integrated research data sharing ecosystem.

Patient-driven innovations reported in peer-reviewed journals: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Awareness of patients' innovative capabilities is increasing, but there is limited knowledge regarding the extent and nature of patient-driven innovations in the peer-reviewed literature.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the review was to answer the question: what is the nature and extent of patient-driven innovations published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We used a broad definition of innovation to allow for a comprehensive review of different types of innovations and a narrow definition of 'patient driven' to focus on the role of patients and/or family caregivers. The search was limited to years 2008-2020.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

Four electronic databases (Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO (Ovid) and Cinahl (Ebsco)) were searched in December 2020 for publications describing patient-driven innovations and complemented with snowball strategies.

CHARTING METHODS

Data from the included articles were extracted and categorised inductively.

RESULTS

A total of 96 articles on 20 patient-driven innovations were included. The number of publications increased over time, with 69% of the articles published between 2016 and 2020. Author affiliations were exclusively in high income countries with 56% of first authors in North America and 36% in European countries. Among the 20 innovations reported, 'Do-It-Yourself Artificial Pancreas System' and the online health network 'PatientsLikeMe', were the subject of half of the articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer-reviewed publications on patient-driven innovations are increasing and we see an important opportunity for researchers and clinicians to support patient innovators' research while being mindful of taking over the work of the innovators themselves.

Patients' and public views and attitudes towards the sharing of health data for research: a narrative review of the empirical evidence

INTRODUCTION

International 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.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

Twenty-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.

CONCLUSIONS

Our 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.

Connecting community-delivered evidence-based programs and the healthcare system: Piloting a learning "wellcare" system

INTRODUCTION

Many evidence-based programs (EBPs) have been determined in randomized controlled trials to be effective, but few studies explore the real-world effectiveness of EBPs implemented in the natural community setting. Our study evaluated whether a novel linked infrastructure would enable such insights and continuous improvement as part of a learning healthcare-community bridged "wellcare" ecosystem.

METHODS

We created a secure, web-based data entry and storage platform with a network of Minnesota community-based organizations to record EBP participants' demographics and attendance, and program details. We then linked participant's information to their Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records. With this infrastructure, we conducted a proof of concept, retrospective cohort study by matching EBP participants to REP controls and comparing medical record-documented outcomes over 1 year follow-up.

RESULTS

We successfully linked EBP participant records with medical records in 77.6% of cases, and the infrastructure proved feasible and scalable. Still, key challenges remain in obtaining participant consent for data sharing. Upfront resource investments and the availability of REP-like warehouses limit generalizability. Optimal learning will be improved by enhancements that better track program fidelity. Our pilot study established a proof-of-concept, but sample sizes (n = 99 for falls prevention and n = 97 chronic disease/pain management EBP completers) were too small to detect significant differences in hospital admittance as compared to matched controls for either EBP group, (OR = 0.66[0.36, 1.19]) and (OR = 0.81[0.43, 1.54]), respectively. Events were too rare to gather meaningful information about effects on fall rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Our pilot demonstrates the feasibility of developing an online infrastructure that connects information from community leaders with medical record documented health outcomes, bridging the knowledge gap between community programs and the health care system. Insights gleaned from our infrastructure can be used to continuously shape community program delivery to reduce the need for formal health care services.

Identifying and prioritizing benefits and risks of using privacy-enhancing software through participatory design: a nominal group technique study with patients living with chronic conditions

OBJECTIVE

While patients often contribute data for research, they want researchers to protect their data. As part of a participatory design of privacy-enhancing software, this study explored patients' perceptions of privacy protection in research using their healthcare data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted 4 focus groups with 27 patients on privacy-enhancing software using the nominal group technique. We provided participants with an open source software prototype to demonstrate privacy-enhancing features and elicit privacy concerns. Participants generated ideas on benefits, risks, and needed additional information. Following a thematic analysis of the results, we deployed an online questionnaire to identify consensus across all 4 groups. Participants were asked to rank-order benefits and risks. Themes around "needed additional information" were rated by perceived importance on a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Participants considered "allowance for minimum disclosure" and "comprehensive privacy protection that is not currently available" as the most important benefits when using the privacy-enhancing prototype software. The most concerning perceived risks were "additional checks needed beyond the software to ensure privacy protection" and the "potential of misuse by authorized users." Participants indicated a desire for additional information with 6 of the 11 themes receiving a median participant rating of "very necessary" and rated "information on the data custodian" as "essential."

CONCLUSIONS

Patients recognize not only the benefits of privacy-enhancing software, but also inherent risks. Patients desire information about how their data are used and protected. Effective patient engagement, communication, and transparency in research may improve patients' comfort levels, alleviate patients' concerns, and thus promote ethical research.

Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post-procedural communication framework

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making and patient-centred communication have become part of pre-procedural decisions and perioperative care across medical specialties. However, gaps exist in patient communication about the implanted device received and the benefits in sharing information about their procedure and device.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the patients' knowledge of identifying information for their implanted devices and perspectives on sharing their implanted device information.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted with patients who had received a cardiac or vascular implanted device from one of the study sites within the previous 6 months. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged: lack of awareness of identifying information on implanted devices; value of information on implanted devices; varying trust with sharing device information; perceived risk with sharing device information; and lack of consensus on a systematic process for tracking implanted devices.

DISCUSSION

Patients desire post-procedural information on their implanted device and a designated plan for longitudinal follow-up, but lack trust and perceive risk with broadly sharing their implanted device information.

CONCLUSION

After receiving an implanted device, post-procedural patient communication needs to be expanded to include identifying information on the device including the unique device identifier, how long-term tracking will be supported and the process for notification in case of a problem with the device. This communication should also include education on how sharing device information supports patients' long-term health care, post-market safety surveillance and research.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The research team included members who were also patients with implanted devices.

Communicating With Patients About Software for Enhancing Privacy in Secondary Database Research Involving Record Linkage: Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

There is substantial prior research on the perspectives of patients on the use of health information for research. Numerous communication barriers challenge transparency between researchers and data participants in secondary database research (eg, waiver of informed consent and knowledge gaps). Individual concerns and misconceptions challenge the trust in researchers among patients despite efforts to protect data. Technical software used to protect research data can further complicate the public's understanding of research. For example, MiNDFIRL (Minimum Necessary Disclosure For Interactive Record Linkage) is a prototype software that can be used to enhance the confidentiality of data sets by restricting disclosures of identifying information during the record linkage process. However, software, such as MiNDFIRL, which is used to protect data, must overcome the aforementioned communication barriers. One proposed solution is the creation of an interactive web-based frequently asked question (FAQ) template that can be adapted and used to communicate research issues to data subjects.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to improve communication with patients and transparency about how complex software, such as MiNDFIRL, is used to enhance privacy in secondary database studies to maintain the public's trust in researchers.

METHODS

A Delphi technique with 3 rounds of the survey was used to develop the FAQ document to communicate privacy issues related to a generic secondary database study using the MiNDFIRL software. The Delphi panel consisted of 38 patients with chronic health conditions. We revised the FAQ between Delphi rounds and provided participants with a summary of the feedback. We adopted a conservative consensus threshold of less than 10% negative feedback per FAQ section.

RESULTS

We developed a consensus language for 21 of the 24 FAQ sections. Participant feedback demonstrated preference differences (eg, brevity vs comprehensiveness). We adapted the final FAQ into an interactive web-based format that 94% (31/33) of the participants found helpful or very helpful. The template FAQ and MiNDFIRL source code are available on GitHub. The results indicate the following patient communication considerations: patients have diverse and varied preferences; the tone is important but challenging; and patients want information on security, identifiers, and final disposition of information.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study provide insights into what research-related information is useful to patients and how researchers can communicate such information. These findings align with the current understanding of health literacy and its challenges. Communication is essential to transparency and ethical data use, yet it is exceedingly challenging. Developing FAQ template language to accompany a complex software may enable researchers to provide greater transparency when informed consent is not possible.

US Privacy Laws Go Against Public Preferences: Impeding Public Health and Research (Preprint)

Background

Reaping the benefits from massive volumes of data collected in all sectors to improve population health, inform personalized medicine, and transform biomedical research requires the delicate balance between the benefits and risks of using individual-level data. There is a patchwork of US data protection laws that vary depending on the type of data, who is using it, and their intended purpose. Differences in these laws challenge big data projects using data from different sources. The decisions to permit or restrict data uses are determined by elected officials; therefore, constituent input is critical to finding the right balance between individual privacy and public benefits.

Objective

This study explores the US public’s preferences for using identifiable data for different purposes without their consent.

Methods

We measured data use preferences of a nationally representative sample of 504 US adults by conducting a web-based survey in February 2020. The survey used a choice-based conjoint analysis. We selected choice-based conjoint attributes and levels based on 5 US data protection laws (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Privacy Act of 1974, Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Common Rule). There were 72 different combinations of attribute levels, representing different data use scenarios. Participants were given 12 pairs of data use scenarios and were asked to choose the scenario they were the most comfortable with. We then simulated the population preferences by using the hierarchical Bayes regression model using the ChoiceModelR package in R.

Results

Participants strongly preferred data reuse for public health and research than for profit-driven, marketing, or crime-detection activities. Participants also strongly preferred data use by universities or nonprofit organizations over data use by businesses and governments. Participants were fairly indifferent about the different types of data used (health, education, government, or economic data).

Conclusions

Our results show a notable incongruence between public preferences and current US data protection laws. Our findings appear to show that the US public favors data uses promoting social benefits over those promoting individual or organizational interests. This study provides strong support for continued efforts to provide safe access to useful data sets for research and public health. Policy makers should consider more robust public health and research data use exceptions to align laws with public preferences. In addition, policy makers who revise laws to enable data use for research and public health should consider more comprehensive protection mechanisms, including transparent use of data and accountability.

Social Media, Research, and Ethics: Does Participant Willingness Matter?

Objective : To summarise the state of the art published in 2019 in consumer health informatics and education, with a special emphasis on “Ethics and Health Informatics”.

Methods : We conducted a systematic search of articles published in PubMed using a predefined set of queries, which identified 368 potential articles for review. These articles were screened according to topic relevance and 15 were selected for consideration of best paper candidates, which were then presented to a panel of international experts for full paper review and scoring. The top five papers according to the external reviewers’ ranking were discussed in a consensus meeting. Finally, the paper that received the highest score from four of the five experts was selected as the best paper on social media and ethics for patients and consumers of the year 2019.

Results : Despite using the terms “ethics” and “ethical” in the search query, we retrieved very few articles. The bibliometric analysis identified three major clusters centred on “social”, “health”, and “study”. Among the top five papers, one was a review where the authors identified ethical issues across four areas at the intersection of social media and health: 1) the impact of social networking sites on the doctor-patient relationship; 2) the development of e-health platforms to deliver care; 3) the use of online data and algorithms to inform health research; and 4) the broader public health consequences of widespread social media use. The other papers highlighted ethical concerns in using social media to interact with patients at different phases of a clinical research protocol, such as recruitment phase, participant engagement, data linkage, and detection and monitoring of adverse events.

Conclusions : Findings suggest that most users do not think that using social media for patient monitoring in clinical research, for example using Twitter for clinical trial recruitment, constitutes inappropriate surveillance or a violation of privacy. However, further research is needed to identify whether and how views on ethical concerns differed between social media platforms and across populations.

Five models for child and adolescent data linkage in the UK: a review of existing and proposed methods

Over the last decade dramatic advances have been made in both the technology and data available to better understand the multifactorial influences on child and adolescent health and development. This paper seeks to clarify methods that can be used to link information from health, education, social care and research datasets. Linking these different types of data can facilitate epidemiological research that investigates mental health from the population to the patient; enabling advanced analytics to better identify, conceptualise and address child and adolescent needs. The majority of adolescent mental health research is not able to maximise the full potential of data linkage, primarily due to four key challenges: confidentiality, sampling, matching and scalability. By presenting five existing and proposed models for linking adolescent data in relation to these challenges, this paper aims to facilitate the clinical benefits that will be derived from effective integration of available data in understanding, preventing and treating mental disorders.