Public Preferences regarding Data Linkage for Health Research: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Public Preferences for Digital Health Data Sharing: Discrete Choice Experiment Study in 12 European Countries

BACKGROUND

With new technologies, health data can be collected in a variety of different clinical, research, and public health contexts, and then can be used for a range of new purposes. Establishing the public's views about digital health data sharing is essential for policy makers to develop effective harmonization initiatives for digital health data governance at the European level.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated public preferences for digital health data sharing.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment survey was administered to a sample of European residents in 12 European countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) from August 2020 to August 2021. Respondents answered whether hypothetical situations of data sharing were acceptable for them. Each hypothetical scenario was defined by 5 attributes ("data collector," "data user," "reason for data use," "information on data sharing and consent," and "availability of review process"), which had 3 to 4 attribute levels each. A latent class model was run across the whole data set and separately for different European regions (Northern, Central, and Southern Europe). Attribute relative importance was calculated for each latent class's pooled and regional data sets.

RESULTS

A total of 5015 completed surveys were analyzed. In general, the most important attribute for respondents was the availability of information and consent during health data sharing. In the latent class model, 4 classes of preference patterns were identified. While respondents in 2 classes strongly expressed their preferences for data sharing with opposing positions, respondents in the other 2 classes preferred not to share their data, but attribute levels of the situation could have had an impact on their preferences. Respondents generally found the following to be the most acceptable: a national authority or academic research project as the data user; being informed and asked to consent; and a review process for data transfer and use, or transfer only. On the other hand, collection of their data by a technological company and data use for commercial communication were the least acceptable. There was preference heterogeneity across Europe and within European regions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed the importance of transparency in data use and oversight of health-related data sharing for European respondents. Regional and intraregional preference heterogeneity for "data collector," "data user," "reason," "type of consent," and "review" calls for governance solutions that would grant data subjects the ability to control their digital health data being shared within different contexts. These results suggest that the use of data without consent will demand weighty and exceptional reasons. An interactive and dynamic informed consent model combined with oversight mechanisms may be a solution for policy initiatives aiming to harmonize health data use across Europe.

Towards a standardised cross-sectoral data access agreement template for research: a core set of principles for data access within trusted research environments

Introduction

Trusted Research Environments (TREs) are secure computing environments that provide access to data for approved researchers to use in studies that can save and improve lives. TREs rely on Data Access Agreements (DAAs) to bind researchers and their organisations to the terms and conditions of accessing the infrastructure and data use. However, DAAs can be overly lengthy, complex, and can contain outdated terms from historical data sharing agreements for physical exchange of data. This is often cited as a cause of significant delays to legal review and research projects starting.

Objectives

The aim was to develop a standardised DAA optimised for data science in TREs across the UK and framed around the 'Five Safes framework' for trustworthy data use. The DAA is underpinned by principles of data access in TREs, the development of which is described in this paper.

Methods

The Pan-UK Data Governance Steering Group of the UK Health Data Research Alliance led the development of a core set of data access principles. This was informed by a benchmarking exercise of DAAs used by established TREs and consultation with public members and stakeholders.

Results

We have defined a core set of principles for TRE data access that can be mapped to a common set of DAA terms for UK-based TREs. Flexibility will be ensured by including terms specific to TREs or specific data/data owners in customisable annexes. Public views obtained through public involvement and engagement (PIE) activities are also reported.

Conclusions

These principles provide the foundation for a standardised UK TRE DAA template, designed to support the growing ecosystem of TREs. By providing a familiar structure and terms, this template aims to build trust among data owners and the UK public and to provide clarity to researchers on their obligations to protect the data. Widespread adoption is intended to accelerate health data research by enabling faster approval of projects, ultimately enabling more timely and effective research.

Expanding citizen engagement in the secondary use of health data: an opportunity for national health data access bodies to realise the intentions of the European health data space

The European Health Data Space (EHDS) aims to make the primary use of health data for healthcare provision more continuous, effective, and (cost) efficient. Moreover, it pursues to facilitate the secondary use of health data for purposes such as research, innovation, and policy making. In the context of secondary use, the EHDS legislative proposal (published on 3 May 2022) argues that Member States should develop Health Data Access Bodies (HDABs) whose responsibilities include facilitating the secondary use of health data, issuing data permits, and implementing high levels of accountability and security. In Belgium, the setup in 2023 of a federal Health Data Agency (HDA) that is developing and implementing a policy strategy and framework for the secondary use of health data, aligns well with the responsibilities set out for HDABs. Even though the EHDS aspires the empowerment of citizens, for instance by giving them access to their health data and control over the healthcare professionals who can consult these data, this call for citizen empowerment resonates less loudly regarding secondary use. We think, however, that elaborating and implementing citizen engagement in the domain of secondary use is required to align secondary use with socio-ethical sensitivities, preferences, and values and to provide social legitimacy and ethical solidity to a health data governance system. When implementing the EHDS legislation on a national level, the Belgian HDA and the future HDABs in general might be excellent opportunities to realise this ambition of citizen involvement and empowerment. More specifically, we urge HDABs, firstly, to expand the field of citizen engagement towards the domain of secondary use and, secondly, to respect and facilitate the diversity of citizen engagement. This would offer citizens genuine, continuous and diversified possibilities of involvement and co-creation concerning the development of a solid ethical governance framework for health data.

A profile of the Grampian Data Safe Haven, a regional Scottish safe haven for health and population data research

There has been a recent emphasis to establish and codify large-scale or national Trusted Research Environments (TREs) in the United Kingdom, with a view to limit smaller, local TREs. The basis for this argument is that it avoids duplication of infrastructure, information governance, privacy risks, monopolies and will promote innovation, particularly with commercial partners. However, the work around establishing TREs in the UK largely ignores the long-established local TRE landscape in Scotland, and the way in which local TREs can actually improve data quality, solve technical architecture challenges, promote information governance and risk minimisation, and encourage innovation and collaboration (both academic and commercial). This data centre profile focuses on the Grampian Data Safe Haven (DaSH), a secure, virtual healthcare data analysis and storage centre located in Aberdeen, Scotland. DaSH was co-established by the NHS Grampian Health Board and University of Aberdeen to allow for the secure processing and linking of health data for the Grampian and Scottish population when it is not practicable to obtain consent from individual patients. As an established trusted research environment now in its 10th operating year, DaSH technology ensures healthcare, social care data and other types of sensitive data, routinely collected and used without individual patient consent, are made accessible for both academic research and clinical service evaluation and improvements whilst protecting individuals' privacy at the local, national and international levels. DaSH has registered almost 600 projects and facilitated over 200 distinct research projects with data hosting, extraction, and novel linkages to completion. Ongoing innovation and collaboration between DaSH and the NHS Grampian Health Board continues to expand researcher access to new types of data and data linkages, introduce new technologies for advanced statistical research methods, and supports interdisciplinary research using population health and social care data for research, clinical and commercial advancements, and real-world practitioner applications. The purpose of this paper is to present DaSH's data population, operating model, architecture and information technology, governance, legislation and management, privacy-by-design principles and data access, data linkage methods, data sources, noteworthy research outputs, and further developments in order to demonstrate the value of local TREs within the data management and access debate.

A preregistered vignette experiment on determinants of health data sharing behavior Willingness to donate sensor data, medical records, and biomarkers

The COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted the importance of high-quality data for empirical health research and evidence-based political decision-making. To leverage the full potential of these data, a better understanding of the determinants and conditions under which people are willing to share their health data is critical. Building on the privacy theory of contextual integrity, the privacy calculus, and previous findings regarding different data types and recipients, we argue that established social norms shape the acceptance of novel practices of data collection and use. To investigate the willingness to share health data, we conducted a preregistered vignette experiment. The scenarios experimentally varied the vignette dimensions by data type, recipient, and research purpose. While some findings contradict our hypotheses, the results indicate that all three dimensions affected respondents' data sharing decisions. Additional analyses suggest that institutional and social trust, privacy concerns, technical affinity, altruism, age, and device ownership influence the willingness to share health data.

Feasibility and ethics of using data from the Scottish newborn blood spot archive for research

Background

Newborn heel prick blood spots are routinely used to screen for inborn errors of metabolism and life-limiting inherited disorders. The potential value of secondary data from newborn blood spot archives merits ethical consideration and assessment of feasibility for public benefit. Early life exposures and behaviours set health trajectories in childhood and later life. The newborn blood spot is potentially well placed to create an unbiased and cost-effective population-level retrospective birth cohort study. Scotland has retained newborn blood spots for all children born since 1965, around 3 million in total. However, a moratorium on research access is currently in place, pending public consultation.

Methods

We conducted a Citizens' Jury as a first step to explore whether research use of newborn blood spots was in the public interest. We also assessed the feasibility and value of extracting research data from dried blood spots for predictive medicine.

Results

Jurors delivered an agreed verdict that conditional research access to the newborn blood spots was in the public interest. The Chief Medical Officer for Scotland authorised restricted lifting of the current research moratorium to allow a feasibility study. Newborn blood spots from consented Generation Scotland volunteers were retrieved and their potential for both epidemiological and biological research demonstrated.

Conclusions

Through the Citizens' Jury, we have begun to identify under what conditions, if any, should researchers in Scotland be granted access to the archive. Through the feasibility study, we have demonstrated the potential value of research access for health data science and predictive medicine.

Patients' and Publics' Preferences for Data-Intensive Health Research Governance: Survey Study

Background

Patients and publics are generally positive about data-intensive health research. However, conditions need to be fulfilled for their support. Ensuring confidentiality, security, and privacy of patients’ health data is pivotal. Patients and publics have concerns about secondary use of data by commercial parties and the risk of data misuse, reasons for which they favor personal control of their data. Yet, the potential of public benefit highlights the potential of building trust to attenuate these perceptions of harm and risk. Nevertheless, empirical evidence on how conditions for support of data-intensive health research can be operationalized to that end remains scant.

Objective

This study aims to inform efforts to design governance frameworks for data-intensive health research, by gaining insight into the preferences of patients and publics for governance policies and measures.

Methods

We distributed a digital questionnaire among a purposive sample of patients and publics. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and nonparametric inferential statistics to compare group differences and explore associations between policy preferences.

Results

Study participants (N=987) strongly favored sharing their health data for scientific health research. Personal decision-making about which research projects health data are shared with (346/980, 35.3%), which researchers/organizations can have access (380/978, 38.9%), and the provision of information (458/981, 46.7%) were found highly important. Health data–sharing policies strengthening direct personal control, like being able to decide under which conditions health data are shared (538/969, 55.5%), were found highly important. Policies strengthening collective governance, like reliability checks (805/967, 83.2%) and security safeguards (787/976, 80.6%), were also found highly important. Further analysis revealed that participants willing to share health data, to a lesser extent, demanded policies strengthening direct personal control than participants who were reluctant to share health data. This was the case for the option to have health data deleted at any time (P<.001) and the ability to decide the conditions under which health data can be shared (P<.001). Overall, policies and measures enforcing conditions for support at the collective level of governance, like having an independent committee to evaluate requests for access to health data (P=.02), were most strongly favored. This also applied to participants who explicitly stressed that it was important to be able to decide the conditions under which health data can be shared, for instance, whether sanctions on data misuse are in place (P=.03).

Conclusions

This study revealed that both a positive attitude toward health data sharing and demand for personal decision-making abilities were associated with policies and measures strengthening control at the collective level of governance. We recommend pursuing the development of this type of governance policy. More importantly, further study is required to understand how governance policies and measures can contribute to the trustworthiness of data-intensive health research.

Public opinion on sharing data from health services for clinical and research purposes without explicit consent: an anonymous online survey in the UK

OBJECTIVES

UK National Health Service/Health and Social Care (NHS/HSC) data are variably shared between healthcare organisations for direct care, and increasingly de-identified for research. Few large-scale studies have examined public opinion on sharing, including of mental health (MH) versus physical health (PH) data. We measured data sharing preferences.

DESIGN/SETTING/INTERVENTIONS/OUTCOMES

Pre-registered anonymous online survey, measuring expressed preferences, recruiting February to September 2020. Participants were randomised to one of three framing statements regarding MH versus PH data.

PARTICIPANTS

Open to all UK residents. Participants numbered 29 275; 40% had experienced an MH condition.

RESULTS

Most (76%) supported identifiable data sharing for direct clinical care without explicit consent, but 20% opposed this. Preference for clinical/identifiable sharing decreased with geographical distance and was slightly less for MH than PH data, with small framing effects. Preference for research/de-identified data sharing without explicit consent showed the same small PH/MH and framing effects, plus greater preference for sharing structured data than de-identified free text. There was net support for research sharing to the NHS, academic institutions, and national research charities, net ambivalence about sharing to profit-making companies researching treatments, and net opposition to sharing to other companies (similar to sharing publicly). De-identified linkage to non-health data was generally supported, except to data held by private companies. We report demographic influences on preference. A majority (89%) supported a single NHS mechanism to choose uses of their data. Support for data sharing increased during COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Support for healthcare data sharing for direct care without explicit consent is broad but not universal. There is net support for the sharing of de-identified data for research to the NHS, academia, and the charitable sector, but not the commercial sector. A single national NHS-hosted system for patients to control the use of their NHS data for clinical purposes and for research would have broad support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN37444142.

Public opinion on sharing data from health services for clinical and research purposes without explicit consent: an anonymous online survey in the UK

OBJECTIVES

UK National Health Service/Health and Social Care (NHS/HSC) data are variably shared between healthcare organisations for direct care, and increasingly de-identified for research. Few large-scale studies have examined public opinion on sharing, including of mental health (MH) versus physical health (PH) data. We measured data sharing preferences.

DESIGN/SETTING/INTERVENTIONS/OUTCOMES

Pre-registered anonymous online survey, measuring expressed preferences, recruiting February to September 2020. Participants were randomised to one of three framing statements regarding MH versus PH data.

PARTICIPANTS

Open to all UK residents. Participants numbered 29 275; 40% had experienced an MH condition.

RESULTS

Most (76%) supported identifiable data sharing for direct clinical care without explicit consent, but 20% opposed this. Preference for clinical/identifiable sharing decreased with geographical distance and was slightly less for MH than PH data, with small framing effects. Preference for research/de-identified data sharing without explicit consent showed the same small PH/MH and framing effects, plus greater preference for sharing structured data than de-identified free text. There was net support for research sharing to the NHS, academic institutions, and national research charities, net ambivalence about sharing to profit-making companies researching treatments, and net opposition to sharing to other companies (similar to sharing publicly). De-identified linkage to non-health data was generally supported, except to data held by private companies. We report demographic influences on preference. A majority (89%) supported a single NHS mechanism to choose uses of their data. Support for data sharing increased during COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Support for healthcare data sharing for direct care without explicit consent is broad but not universal. There is net support for the sharing of de-identified data for research to the NHS, academia, and the charitable sector, but not the commercial sector. A single national NHS-hosted system for patients to control the use of their NHS data for clinical purposes and for research would have broad support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN37444142.

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.

Trust and Trade-Offs in Sharing Data for Precision Medicine: A National Survey of Singapore

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine (PM) programs typically use broad consent. This approach requires maintenance of the social license and public trust. The ultimate success of PM programs will thus likely be contingent upon understanding public expectations about data sharing and establishing appropriate governance structures. There is a lack of data on public attitudes towards PM in Asia.

METHODS

The aim of the research was to measure the priorities and preferences of Singaporeans for sharing health-related data for PM. We used adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis (ACBC) with four attributes: uses, users, data sensitivity and consent. We recruited a representative sample of n = 1000 respondents for an in-person household survey.

RESULTS

Of the 1000 respondents, 52% were female and majority were in the age range of 40-59 years (40%), followed by 21-39 years (33%) and 60 years and above (27%). A total of 64% were generally willing to share de-identified health data for IRB-approved research without re-consent for each study. Government agencies and public institutions were the most trusted users of data. The importance of the four attributes on respondents' willingness to share data were: users (39.5%), uses (28.5%), data sensitivity (19.5%), consent (12.6%). Most respondents found it acceptable for government agencies and hospitals to use de-identified data for health research with broad consent. Our sample was consistent with official government data on the target population with 52% being female and majority in the age range of 40-59 years (40%), followed by 21-39 years (33%) and 60 years and above (27%).

CONCLUSIONS

While a significant body of prior research focuses on preferences for consent, our conjoint analysis found consent was the least important attribute for sharing data. Our findings suggest the social license for PM data sharing in Singapore currently supports linking health and genomic data, sharing with public institutions for health research and quality improvement; but does not support sharing with private health insurers or for private commercial use.

Publics’ preferences for sharing health data: a discrete choice experiment (Preprint)

Background

Digital technological development in the last 20 years has led to significant growth in digital collection, use, and sharing of health data. To maintain public trust in the digital society and to enable acceptable policy-making in the future, it is important to investigate people’s preferences for sharing digital health data.

Objective

The aim of this study is to elicit the preferences of the public in different Northern European countries (the United Kingdom, Norway, Iceland, and Sweden) for sharing health information in different contexts.

Methods

Respondents in this discrete choice experiment completed several choice tasks, in which they were asked if data sharing in the described hypothetical situation was acceptable to them. Latent class logistic regression models were used to determine attribute-level estimates and heterogeneity in preferences. We calculated the relative importance of the attributes and the predicted acceptability for different contexts in which the data were shared from the estimates.

Results

In the final analysis, we used 37.83% (1967/5199) questionnaires. All attributes influenced the respondents’ willingness to share health information (P<.001). The most important attribute was whether the respondents were informed about their data being shared. The possibility of opting out from sharing data was preferred over the opportunity to consent (opt-in). Four classes were identified in the latent class model, and the average probabilities of belonging were 27% for class 1, 32% for class 2, 23% for class 3, and 18% for class 4. The uptake probability varied between 14% and 85%, depending on the least to most preferred combination of levels.

Conclusions

Respondents from different countries have different preferences for sharing their health data regarding the value of a review process and the reason for their new use. Offering respondents information about the use of their data and the possibility to opt out is the most preferred governance mechanism.

Trust, security and public interest: striking the balance A narrative review of previous literature on public attitudes towards the sharing, linking and use of administrative data for research

This narrative literature review explores previous findings in relation to the UK public’s attitudes towards the sharing, linking and use of public sector administrative data for research. A total of 16 papers are included in the review, for which data was collected between the years 2006-2018.

The review finds, on the basis of previous literature on the topic, that the public is broadly supportive of administrative data research if three core conditions are met: public interest, privacy and security, and trust and transparency. None of these conditions is sufficient in isolation; the literature shows public support is underpinned by fulfillment of all three. However, it also shows that in certain cases where the standard of one condition is very high – particularly public interest – this could mean the standard of another may, if necessary, be lower. An appropriate balance must be struck, and the proposed benefits of sharing and using data for research must outweigh the potential risks. Broad, conditional support for the use of administrative data in research has not only been found consistently, but has also been held over time.

Most studies identified by this review have focused on exploring the views of the general public towards the acceptability of administrative data use in broad terms. However, with the exception of that related to healthcare data, the review identified little work focused on gaining input from relevant demographics and communities in relation to specific data types or areas of research. In addition to fulfilling the core conditions of public support identified by broader work, initiatives making use of administrative data should aim to seek the views of relevant sub-sectors of the public in the development of research in relation to specific issues.