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

      A systematic literature review of health consumer attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: a focus on privacy, trust, and transparency

      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

          We aimed to synthesise data on issues related to stakeholder perceptions of privacy, trust, and transparency in use of secondary data. A systematic literature review of healthcare consumer attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data was conducted. EMBASE/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Informit Health Collection, PROSPERO Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and ProQuest databases were searched. Eligible articles included those reporting qualitative or quantitative original research and published in English. No restrictions were placed on publication dates, study design or disease setting. One author screened articles for eligibility, and two authors were involved in the full text review process. Data was extracted using a pre-piloted data extraction template by one author and checked by another. Conflicts were resolved by consensus. Quality and bias were assessed using the QualSyst criteria for qualitative and quantitative studies. This paper focuses on a subset of 35 articles identified from the wider search which focus on issues of privacy, trust, and transparency. Studies included a total of 56,365 respondents. Results of this systematic literature review indicate that while respondents identified advantages in sharing health data, concerns relating to trust, transparency, and privacy remain. Organisations collecting health data and those who seek to share data or undertake secondary data analysis should continue to develop trust, transparency, and privacy with healthcare consumers through open dialogue and education. Consideration should be given to these issues at all stages of data collection including the conception, design, and implementation phases. While individuals understand the benefits of health data sharing for research purposes, ensuring a balance between public benefit and individual privacy is essential. Researchers and those undertaking secondary data analysis need to be cognisant of these key issues at all stages of their research. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018110559 (update June 2020).

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

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

          Addressing Bias in Artificial Intelligence in Health Care

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

            A Systematic Review of the Burden of Pancreatic Cancer in Europe: Real-World Impact on Survival, Quality of Life and Costs

            Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the overall burden of pancreatic cancer in Europe, with a focus on survival time in a real-world setting, and the overall healthy life lost to the disease. Methods Real-world data were retrieved from peer-reviewed, observational studies identified by an electronic search. We performed two de novo analyses: a proportional shortfall analysis to quantify the proportion of healthy life lost to pancreatic cancer and an estimation of the aggregate life-years lost annually in Europe. Results Ninety-one studies were included. The median, age-standardised incidence of pancreatic cancer per 100,000 was 7.6 in men and 4.9 in women. Overall median survival from diagnosis was 4.6 months; median survival was 2.8–5.7 months in patients with metastatic disease. The proportional shortfall analysis showed that pancreatic cancer results in a 98 % loss of healthy life, with a life expectancy at diagnosis of 4.6 months compared to 15.1 years for an age-matched healthy population. Annually, 610,000–915,000 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) are lost to pancreatic cancer in Europe. Patients had significantly lower scores on validated health-related quality of life instruments versus population norms. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically review real-world overall survival and patient outcomes of pancreatic cancer patients in Europe outside the context of clinical trials. Our findings confirm the poor prognosis and short survival reported by national studies. Pancreatic cancer is a substantial burden in Europe, with nearly a million aggregate life-years lost annually and almost complete loss of healthy life in affected individuals. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12029-015-9724-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical Trial Participants’ Views of the Risks and Benefits of Data Sharing

              BACKGROUND Sharing of participant-level clinical trial data has potential benefits, but concerns about potential harms to research participants have led some pharmaceutical sponsors and investigators to urge caution. Little is known about clinical trial participants’ perceptions of the risks of data sharing. METHODS We conducted a structured survey of 771 current and recent participants from a diverse sample of clinical trials at three academic medical centers in the United States. Surveys were distributed by mail (350 completed surveys) and in clinic waiting rooms (421 completed surveys) (overall response rate, 79%). RESULTS Less than 8% of respondents felt that the potential negative consequences of data sharing outweighed the benefits. A total of 93% were very or somewhat likely to allow their own data to be shared with university scientists, and 82% were very or somewhat likely to share with scientists in for-profit companies. Willingness to share data did not vary appreciably with the purpose for which the data would be used, with the exception that fewer participants were willing to share their data for use in litigation. The respondents’ greatest concerns were that data sharing might make others less willing to enroll in clinical trials (37% very or somewhat concerned), that data would be used for marketing purposes (34%), or that data could be stolen (30%). Less concern was expressed about discrimination (22%) and exploitation of data for profit (20%). CONCLUSIONS In our study, few clinical trial participants had strong concerns about the risks of data sharing. Provided that adequate security safeguards were in place, most participants were willing to share their data for a wide range of uses. (Funded by the Greenwall Foundation.)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ehut9091@uni.sydney.edu.au
                Journal
                Syst Rev
                Syst Rev
                Systematic Reviews
                BioMed Central (London )
                2046-4053
                9 October 2020
                9 October 2020
                2020
                : 9
                : 235
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.1013.3, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 834X, Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, , University of Sydney, ; North Sydney, NSW Australia
                [2 ]GRID grid.1013.3, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 834X, Department of Psychology, , The University of Sydney, ; Sydney, NSW Australia
                [3 ]Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-Based Decision-Making (CeMPED), Sydney, Australia
                [4 ]GRID grid.1013.3, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 834X, Psycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group (PoCoG), , The University of Sydney, ; Sydney, NSW Australia
                [5 ]Patricia Ritchie Centre for Cancer Care and Research, Mater Hospital, North Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6030-954X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1042-0968
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3562-6954
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3798-1570
                Article
                1481
                10.1186/s13643-020-01481-9
                7547503
                33036664
                5c044458-1872-4402-8b5c-4164df053649
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 19 April 2020
                : 14 September 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Public health
                data sharing,attitudes,privacy,trust,transparency
                Public health
                data sharing, attitudes, privacy, trust, transparency

                Comments

                Comment on this article