11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Crowdsourcing Public Opinion for Sharing Medical Records for the Advancement of Science

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study used Amazon Mechanical Turk to crowdsource public opinions about sharing medical records for clinical research. The 1,508 valid respondents comprised 58.7% males, 54% without college degrees, 41.5% students or unemployed, and 84.3% under 40 years old. More than 74% were somewhat willing to share de-identified records. Education level, employment status, and gender were identified as significant predictors of willingness to share one’s own or one’s family’s medical records (partially identifiable, completely identifiable, or de-identified). Thematic analysis applied to respondent comments uncovered barriers to sharing, including the inability to track uses and users of their information, potential harm (such as identity theft or healthcare denial), lack of trust, and worries about information misuse. Our study suggests that implementing reliable medical record de-identification and emphasizing trust development are essential to addressing such concerns. Amazon Mechanical Turk proved cost-effective for collecting public opinions with short surveys.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Racial differences in factors that influence the willingness to participate in medical research studies.

          The relative absence of racial/ethnic minorities among medical research subjects is receiving considerable attention because of recent government mandates for their inclusion in all human subject research. We examined racial differences in the prevalence of sociocultural barriers as a possible explanation for the underrepresentation of African Americans in medical research studies. During 1998-1999, a total of 198 residents of the Detroit Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) participated in a survey that examined impediments to participation in medical research studies. Chi square tests and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between race, issues related to trust of medical researchers, and the willingness to participate in medical research studies. Study results indicate that African Americans and whites differ in their willingness to participate in medical research. Racial differences in the willingness to participate in a medical research are primarily due to the lower level of trust of medical research among African Americans. African American respondents were also somewhat less willing to participate if they attribute high importance to the race of the doctor when seeking routine medical care, believed that minorities bear most of the risks of medical research, and if their knowledge of the Tuskegee Study resulted in less trust in medical researchers. These data reiterate the need for medical researchers to build trusting relationships with minority communities. Researchers can begin by acknowledging the previous medical abuse of minority research participants, discussing their specific plans to assure the protection of study participants, and explaining the need for the participation of racial/ethnic minorities including studies that specifically target or that are likely to result in disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic minorities among study participants.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Sharing Medical Data for Health Research: The Early Personal Health Record Experience

            Background Engaging consumers in sharing information from personally controlled health records (PCHRs) for health research may promote goals of improving care and advancing public health consistent with the federal Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. Understanding consumer willingness to share data is critical to advancing this model. Objective The objective was to characterize consumer willingness to share PCHR data for health research and the conditions and contexts bearing on willingness to share. Methods A mixed method approach integrating survey and narrative data was used. Survey data were collected about attitudes toward sharing PCHR information for health research from early adopters (n = 151) of a live PCHR populated with medical records and self-reported behavioral and social data. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to characterize willingness, conditions for sharing, and variations by sociodemographic factors. Narrative data were collected through semistructured focus group and one-on-one interviews with a separate sample of community members (n = 30) following exposure to PCHR demonstrations. Two independent analysts coded narrative data for major and minor themes using a shared rubric of a priori defined codes and an iterative inductive process. Findings were triangulated with survey results to identify patterns. Results Of PHCR users, 138 out of 151 (91%) were willing to share medical information for health research with 89 (59%) favoring an opt-in sharing model. Willingness to share was conditioned by anonymity, research use, engagement with a trusted intermediary, transparency around PCHR access and use, and payment. Consumer-determined restrictions on content and timing of sharing may be prerequisites to sharing. Select differences in support for sharing under different conditions were observed across social groups. No gender differences were observed; however differences in age, role, and self-rated health were found. For example, students were more likely than nonstudents to favor an opt-out sharing default (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 - 7.62, P = .03). Participants over age 50 were less likely than younger participants to report that payment would increase willingness to share (unadjusted OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 - 0.96, P < .001). Students were more likely than nonstudents to report that payment would increase their willingness to share (unadjusted OR 9.62, 95% CI 3.44 - 26.87, P < .001). Experiencing a public health emergency may increase willingness to share especially among persons over 50 (unadjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 - 1.05, P = .02); however, students were less likely than non-students to report this attitude (unadjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 - 0.36, P < .001). Finally, subjects with fair or poor self-rated health were less likely than those with good to excellent self-rated health to report that willingness to share would increase during a public health emergency (unadjusted OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 - 0.97, P = .04). Conclusions Strong support for sharing of PCHR information for health research existed among early adopters and focus group participants, with support varying by social group under different conditions and contexts. Allowing users to select their preferred conditions for sharing may be vital to supporting sharing and fostering trust as may be development of safety monitoring mechanisms.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Public attitudes to the use in research of personal health information from general practitioners' records: a survey of the Irish general public.

              Understanding the views of the public is essential if generally acceptable policies are to be devised that balance research access to general practice patient records with protection of patients' privacy. However, few large studies have been conducted about public attitudes to research access to personal health information. A mixed methods study was performed. Informed by focus groups and literature review, a questionnaire was designed which assessed attitudes to research access to personal health information and factors that influence these. A postal survey was conducted of an electoral roll-based sample of the adult population of Ireland. Completed questionnaires were returned by 1575 (40.6%). Among the respondents, 67.5% were unwilling to allow GPs to decide when researchers could access identifiable personal health information. However, 89.5% said they would agree to ongoing consent arrangements, allowing the sharing by GPs of anonymous personal health information with researchers without the need for consent on a study-by-study basis. Increasing age (by each 10-year increment), being retired and primary level education only were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of agreeing that any personal health information could be shared on an ongoing basis: OR 1.39 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.63), 2.00 (95% CI 1.22 to 3.29) and 3.91 (95% CI 1.95 to 7.85), respectively. Although survey data can be prone to response biases, this study suggests that prior consent agreements allowing the supply by GPs of anonymous personal health information to researchers may be widely supported, and that populations willing to opt in to such arrangements may be sufficiently representative to facilitate valid and robust consent-dependent observational research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                9214582
                21248
                Stud Health Technol Inform
                Stud Health Technol Inform
                Studies in health technology and informatics
                0926-9630
                1879-8365
                8 November 2019
                21 August 2019
                13 November 2019
                : 264
                : 1393-1397
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York City, NY, USA
                [b ]Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Chunhua Weng, PhD, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Medical Center, 622 W 168 Street PH-20, New York, NY 10032. chunhua@ 123456columbia.edu .
                Article
                NIHMS1058390
                10.3233/SHTI190456
                6852611
                31438155
                4b4000aa-5569-4828-8f17-7ef8a8342dc6

                This article is published online with Open Access by IOS Press and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                crowdsourcing,data collection,privacy
                crowdsourcing, data collection, privacy

                Comments

                Comment on this article