Opening a "Can of Worms" to Explore the Public's Hopes and Fears About Health Care Data Sharing: Qualitative Study

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.

Exploring the usability of the virtual reality module LEAF CAFÉ: a qualitative think-aloud study

BACKGROUND

The global healthcare system faces increasing strain from our ageing population, primarily due to the growing prevalence of age-related health conditions such as dementia. While modern healthcare technology offers potential solutions, it frequently lacks user-friendliness for older adults. Virtual Reality (VR) has emerged as a promising tool for diagnosing cognitive impairment, offering innovative solutions where traditional methods may fall short. This study explores older adults' perspectives on the usability of a newly designed VR module for cognitive assessment.

METHODS

During a 100-min session, participants were asked to engage and complete recall and recognition tasks within the VR module (think-aloud approach) and provide feedback upon completion (semi-structured interviews). Audio materials were transcribed for analysis and recordings of the users' interactions with the module were annotated to provide additional context. These combined textual data were analysed using content coding and thematic analysis to identify themes that reflect how participants used the module's features and what features are desirable to support that process better.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 10; Mean age = 73.3, SD = 7.53, range = 65-83 years) perceived the VR module as user-friendly and endorsed its potential as a cognitive screener due to its engaging and immersive nature. Older adults highlighted three key aspects of the module: the usefulness of the platform's ability to offer a comprehensive and reliable evaluation of an individual's cognitive abilities; the need to present concise and relevant content to optimise engagement and use; and the importance of overcoming barriers to support implementation. Suggested game improvements centred on food recognition and adjusting difficulty levels. Barriers to implementation included technology challenges for older adults and concerns about the game's suitability for everyday scenarios. Participants stressed the need for reliable implementation strategies, proposing locations such as libraries and advocating for home-based screening.

CONCLUSION

Continued improvements in accessibility suggest that VR tools could help with diagnosing cognitive impairment in older adults. Using a simulated environment to assess cognitive status might fill the gap between current diagnostic methods, aiding treatment planning and early intervention. However, these findings should be approached cautiously, as more research is needed to fully grasp the potential impact of VR tools in this context.

Feeling safe in the context of digitalization in healthcare: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Digitalization in healthcare and society can be challenging, particularly for people who have limited digital experiences. New digital technologies can influence individuals' perceived safety and well-being. In this study, we aimed to identify and analyze the literature on needs and influencing factors in the context of emotional and psychological safety and digitalization in healthcare.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted based on the PRISMA-ScR standard. The literature was searched based on the databases Medline via PubMed, PsycINFO via Ovid, and CINAHL via EBSCO. Literature was included after a review of the titles, abstracts, and full texts published in English or German in the last 5 years (October 2017-September 2022). Eligible literature included definitions and descriptions of emotional and/or psychological safety and was related to digitalization in healthcare and was analyzed qualitatively via inductive content analysis. The findings were analyzed from ethical, psychosocial, legal, economic, and political perspectives.

RESULTS

A total of 32 publications were finally included thereof qualitative (n = 20), quantitative (n = 3), and mixed methods (n = 2) studies. Other included publications were systematic integrative reviews, scoping reviews, narrative reviews, white papers, and ethical statements. Of these publications, four qualitative studies focused on emotional or psychological safety in the context of digital technology use in healthcare as a primary research aim. Most literature has shown that perceived safety is influenced by perceived changes in healthcare, digital (health) literacy, the design of digital technology, and need orientation. The needs identified in this context overlap strongly with the influencing factors. A low or high perceived safety has an impact on users' thoughts and actions.

CONCLUSION

The importance of emotional safety in the context of digital technologies in healthcare is growing, while psychological safety seems to be underrepresented. The interaction between the influencing factors and the need to feel safe leads to considerations that can affect user behavior and have far-reaching outcomes for the implementation of digital technology in healthcare.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework Registries on 16 December 2022 https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HVYPT .

Participant characteristics and reasons for non-consent to health information linkage for research: experiences from the ATHENA COVID-19 study

BACKGROUND

The linkage of primary care, hospital and other health registry data is a global goal, and a consent-based approach is often used. Understanding the attitudes of why participants take part is important, yet little is known about reasons for non-participation. The ATHENA COVID-19 feasibility study investigated: 1) health outcomes of people diagnosed with COVID-19 in Queensland, Australia through primary care health data linkage using consent, and 2) created a cohort of patients willing to be re-contacted in future to participate in clinical trials. This report describes the characteristics of participants declining to participate and reasons for non-consent.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from January 1st, 2020, to December 31st, 2020, were invited to consent to having their primary healthcare data extracted from their GP into a Queensland Health database and linked to other data sets for ethically approved research. Patients were also asked to consent to future recontact for participation in clinical trials. Outcome measures were proportions of patients consenting to data extraction, permission to recontact, and reason for consent decline.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and ninety-five participants were approached and 842(85%) reached a consent decision. 581(69%), 615(73%) and 629(75%) consented to data extraction, recontact, or both, respectively. Mean (range) age of consenters and non-consenters were 50.6(22-77) and 46.1(22-77) years, respectively. Adjusting for age, gender and remoteness, older participants were more likely to consent than younger (aOR 1.02, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.03). The least socio-economically disadvantaged were more likely to consent than the most disadvantaged (aOR 2.20, 95% 1.33 to 3.64). There was no difference in consent proportions regarding gender or living in more remote regions. The main reasons for non-consent were 'not interested in research' (37%), 'concerns about privacy' (15%), 'not registered with a GP' (8%) and 'too busy/no time' (7%). 'No reason' was given in 20%.

CONCLUSION

Younger participants and the more socio-economically deprived are more likely to non-consent to primary care data linkage. Lack of patient interest in research, time required to participate and privacy concerns, were the most common reasons cited for non-consent. Future health care data linkage studies addressing these issues may prove helpful.

What is public trust in national electronic health record systems? A scoping review of qualitative research studies from 1995 to 2021

Objective

Public trust in national electronic health record systems is essential for the successful implementation within a healthcare system. Research investigating public trust in electronic health records is limited, leading to a lack of conceptual clarity. In response, the objective of this study is to gain a clearer understanding on the conceptualizations of public trust in electronic health records, which can support the implementation of national electronic health record systems.

Methods

Guided by the PRISMA-ScR checklist, a scoping review of 27 qualitative studies on public trust in electronic health records found between January 2022 and June 2022 was conducted using an inclusive search method. In an iterative process, conceptual themes were derived describing the promoters and outcomes of public trust in electronic health records.

Results

Five major conceptual themes with 15 sub-themes were present across the literature. Comprehension, autonomy, and data protection promote public trust in electronic health record; while personal and system benefits are the outcomes once public trust in electronic health records exists. Additional findings highlight the pivotal role of healthcare actors for the public trust building process.

Conclusions

The results underscore comprehension, autonomy, and data protection as important themes that help ascertain and solidify public trust in electronic health records. As well, health system actors have the capacity to promote or hinder national electronic health record implementation, depending on their actions and how the public perceives those actions. The findings can assist researchers, policymakers, and other health system actors in attaining a better understanding of the intricacies of public trust in electronic health records.

Data-Sharing Across Otolaryngology: Comparing Journal Policies and Their Adherence to the FAIR Principles

OBJECTIVE

Data-sharing plays an essential role in advancing scientific understanding. Here, we aim to identify the commonalities and differences in data-sharing policies endorsed by otolaryngology journals and to assess their adherence to the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles.

METHODS

Data-sharing policies were searched for among 111 otolaryngology journals, as listed by Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Policy extraction of the top biomedical journals as ranked by Google Scholar metrics were used as a comparison. The FAIR principles for scientific data management and stewardship were used for the extraction framework. This occurred in a blind, masked, and independent fashion.

RESULTS

Of the 111 ranked otolaryngology journals, 100 met inclusion criteria. Of those 100 journals, 79 provided data-sharing policies. There was a clear lack of standardization across policies, along with specific gaps in accessibility and reusability which need to be addressed. Seventy-two policies (of 79; 91%) designated that metadata should have globally unique and persistent identifiers. Seventy-one (of 79; 90%) policies specified that metadata should clearly include the identifier of the data they describe. Fifty-six policies (of 79; 71%) outlined that metadata should be richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes.

CONCLUSION

Otolaryngology journals have varying data-sharing policies, and adherence to the FAIR principles appears to be moderate. This calls for increased data transparency, allowing for results to be reproduced, confirmed, and debated.

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.

Centering Public Perceptions on Translating AI Into Clinical Practice: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Consultation Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely considered to be the new technical advancement capable of a large-scale modernization of health care. Considering AI's potential impact on the clinician-patient relationship, health care provision, and health care systems more widely, patients and the wider public should be a part of the development, implementation, and embedding of AI applications in health care. Failing to establish patient and public engagement and involvement (PPIE) can limit AI's impact.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to (1) understand patients' and the public's perceived benefits and challenges for AI and (2) clarify how to best conduct PPIE in projects on translating AI into clinical practice, given public perceptions of AI.

METHODS

We conducted this qualitative PPIE focus-group consultation in the United Kingdom. A total of 17 public collaborators representing 7 National Institute of Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaborations across England participated in 1 of 3 web-based semistructured focus group discussions. We explored public collaborators' understandings, experiences, and perceptions of AI applications in health care. Transcripts were coanalyzed iteratively with 2 public coauthors using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 3 primary deductive themes with 7 corresponding inductive subthemes. Primary theme 1, advantages of implementing AI in health care, had 2 subthemes: system improvements and improve quality of patient care and shared decision-making. Primary theme 2, challenges of implementing AI in health care, had 3 subthemes: challenges with security, bias, and access; public misunderstanding of AI; and lack of human touch in care and decision-making. Primary theme 3, recommendations on PPIE for AI in health care, had 2 subthemes: experience, empowerment, and raising awareness; and acknowledging and supporting diversity in PPIE.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and the public can bring unique perspectives on the development, implementation, and embedding of AI in health care. Early PPIE is therefore crucial not only to safeguard patients but also to increase the chances of acceptance of AI by the public and the impact AI can make in terms of outcomes.

What does it take to create a European Health Data Space? International commitments and national realities

Public health concerns in Europe demonstrate the necessity of building a health policy that could contribute to the long-term sustainable development of the European Union (EU), as stated in the European Health Union (EHU) manifesto. The main desire to create an EHU is embodied in the launch of the European Health Data Space (EHDS). The EHDS seeks to foster a genuine single market for digital health services and products by, among other things, accelerating the uptake and implementation of harmonised and interoperable electronic health record (EHR) systems across the EU. In the context of primary and secondary use of EHR data, developments in Europe have thus far resulted in patchy and, in some places, non-interoperable solutions. Taking the gap between international ambitions and national realities as a starting point, this paper contends that both EU level and Member State level circumstances should be considered to make the EHDS a reality.

Patient perspectives on data sharing regarding implementing and using artificial intelligence in general practice - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Due to more elderly and patients with complex illnesses, there is an increasing pressure on the healthcare system. General practice especially feels this pressure as being the first point of contact for the patients. Developments in digitalization have undergone fast progress and data-driven artificial intelligence (AI) has shown great potential for use in general practice. To develop AI as a support tool for general practitioners (GPs), access to patients' health data is needed, but patients have concerns regarding data sharing. Furthermore, studies show that trust is important regarding the patient-GP relationship, data sharing, and AI. The aim of this paper is to uncover patient perspectives on trust regarding the patient-GP relationship, data sharing and AI in general practice.

METHOD

This study investigated 10 patients' perspectives through qualitative interviews and written vignettes were chosen to elicit the patients (interviewees) perspectives on topics that they were not familiar with prior to the interviews. The study specifically investigated perspectives on 1) The patient-GP relationship, 2) data sharing regarding developing AI for general practice, and 3) implementation and use of AI in general practice using thematic analysis. The study took place in the North Denmark Region and the interviewees included had to be registered in general practice and be above 18 years in age. We included four men between 25 to 74 years in age and six women between 27 to 46 years in age.

RESULTS

The interviewees expressed a high level of trust towards their GP and were willing to share their health data with their GP. The interviewees believed that AI could be a great help to GPs if used as a support tool in general practice. However, it was important for the interviewees that the GP would still be the primary decision maker.

CONCLUSION

Patients may be willing to share health data to help implement and use AI in general practice. If AI is implemented in a way that preserves the patient-GP relationship and used as a support tool for the GP, our results indicate that patients may be positive towards the use of AI in general practice.

Qualitative data sharing practices in clinical trials in the UK and Ireland: towards the production of good practice guidance

Background: Data sharing enables researchers to conduct novel research with previously collected datasets, thus maximising scientific findings and cost effectiveness, and reducing research waste. The value of sharing, even de-identified, quantitative data from clinical trials is well recognised with a moderated access approach recommended. While substantial challenges to sharing quantitative data remain, there are additional challenges for sharing qualitative data in trials. Incorporating the necessary information about how qualitative data will be shared into already complex trial recruitment and consent processes proves challenging. The aim of this study was to explore whether and how trial teams share qualitative data collected as part of the design, conduct, analysis, or delivery of clinical trials. Methods: Phase 1 involved semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews and focus groups with key trial stakeholder groups including trial managers and clinical trialists (n=3), qualitative researchers in trials (n=9), members of research funding bodies (n=2) and trial participants (n=1). Data were analysed using thematic analysis. In Phase 2, we conducted a content analysis of 16 participant information leaflets (PIL) and consent forms (CF) for trials that collected qualitative data. Results: Three key themes were identified from our Phase 1 findings: ' Understanding and experiences of the potential benefits of sharing qualitative data from trials', 'Concerns about qualitative data sharing', and ' Future guidance and funding'. In phase 2, the PILs and CFs received revealed that the benefits of data sharing for participants were only explained in two of the study documents. Conclusions: The value of sharing qualitative data was acknowledged, but there are many uncertainties as to how, when, and where to share this data. In addition, there were ethical concerns in relation to the consent process required for qualitative data sharing in trials. This study provides insight into the existing practice of qualitative data sharing in trials.

Digital technologies in primary care: Implications for patient care and future research

Digital health is the convergence of digital technologies with health, healthcare, living, and society. Contrasting with the slow trend during the last decades, in the last few years, we have observed an expansion and widespread adoption and implementation. In this paper, we revisit the potential that digital health presents for the delivery of higher quality, safer and more equitable care. Focussing on three examples - patient access to health records, big data analytics, and virtual care - we discuss the emerging opportunities and challenges of digital health, and how they can change primary care. We also reflect on the implications for research to evaluate digital interventions: the need to evaluate clear outcomes in light of the six dimensions of quality of care (patient-centredness, efficiency, effectiveness, safety, timeliness, and equity); to define clear populations to understand what works and for which patients; and to involve different stakeholders in the formulation and evaluation of the research questions. Finally, we share five wishes for the future of digital care in General Practice: the involvement of primary healthcare professionals and patients in the design and maintenance of digital solutions; improving infrastructure, support, and training; development of clear regulations and best practice standards; ensuring patient safety and privacy; and working towards more equitable digital solutions, that leave no one behind.

Empowering Patients Through Virtual Care Delivery: Qualitative Study With Micropractice Clinic Patients and Health Care Providers

BACKGROUND

Prior to the wider adoption of digital health technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic, applications of virtual care were largely limited to specialist visits and remote care using telehealth (phone or video) applications. Data sharing approaches using tethered patient portals were mostly built around hospitals and larger care systems. These portals offer opportunities for improved communication, but despite a belief that care has improved, they have so far shown few outcome improvements beyond medication adherence. Less is known about use of virtual care and related tools in the outpatient context and particularly in rural community contexts.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to reflect on the opportunities and barriers for sustainable virtual care through an example of a digitally enabled rural micropractice, which has provided 10%-15% virtual care since 2016 and 70% virtual care since March 2020.

METHODS

Three focus groups, 1 with providers (physician and medical office manager) and 2 with a total of 8 patients from a rural micropractice in British Columbia, were conducted in November 2020 and December 2020. Virtual care delivery was explored through the topics of communication approach, mixing virtual and in-person care, the practice team's journey in developing these approaches, and provider and patient satisfaction with the care model. Interviews were transcribed, checked for accuracy against recordings, and thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Both patients and providers reported ease of communication and high satisfaction. Either could initiate communication, and patients found the ability to share health information asynchronously through the portal allowed time to reflect and prepare their thoughts. Patients were highly engaged and reported feeling empowered and true partners in their health care, although they noted limited care coordination with specialists. The mix of virtual and in-person visits was highly regarded by patients and providers, and patients reported feeling safe and cared for 24/7, although both expressed concern about work spilling into the provider's home life. The physician worried about missed diagnoses with virtual care. With respect to establishing the micropractice, solutions took about 5 years to optimize, with providers noting a learning curve requiring technical support for both themselves and their patients and a willingness to respond to patient feedback to identify the best solutions. Despite a mature virtual practice, patients reported deferred care due to COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

The micropractice's hybrid care model encouraged patients to be true partners in their care and resulted in high patient engagement and satisfaction; yet, success may rely on the patient population being willing to engage and being comfortable with technology. Barriers lie in gaps in care coordination and provider fear that signs or symptoms more evident with an in-person exam could be missed. Even in this setting, deferral of care in light of COVID-19 was present, and opportunities to address care gaps should be sought.