Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27107445›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2016

Public preferences for electronic health data storage, access, and sharing - evidence from a pan-European survey.

Sunil Patil, Hui Lu, Catherine L Saunders, Dimitris Potoglou, Neil Robinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Self-Quantification Systems to Support Physical Activity: From Theory to Implementation Principles.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sunil PatilRAND Europe spatil@rand.org.
Hui LuRAND Europe.
Catherine L SaundersRAND Europe.
Dimitris PotoglouSchool of Geography and Planning Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Neil RobinsonRAND Europe.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the public's preferences regarding potential privacy threats from devices or services storing health-related personal data. MATERIALS AND

methodsA pan-European survey based on a stated-preference experiment for assessing preferences for electronic health data storage, access, and sharing.

resultsWe obtained 20 882 survey responses (94 606 preferences) from 27 EU member countries. Respondents recognized the benefits of storing electronic health information, with 75.5%, 63.9%, and 58.9% agreeing that storage was important for improving treatment quality, preventing epidemics, and reducing delays, respectively. Concerns about different levels of access by third parties were expressed by 48.9% to 60.6% of respondents.On average, compared to devices or systems that only store basic health status information, respondents preferred devices that also store identification data (coefficient/relative preference 95% CI = 0.04 [0.00-0.08], P = 0.034) and information on lifelong health conditions (coefficient = 0.13 [0.08 to 0.18], P < 0.001), but there was no evidence of this for devices with information on sensitive health conditions such as mental and sexual health and addictions (coefficient = -0.03 [-0.09 to 0.02], P = 0.24). Respondents were averse to their immediate family (coefficient = -0.05 [-0.05 to -0.01], P = 0.011) and home care nurses (coefficient = -0.06 [-0.11 to -0.02], P = 0.004) viewing this data, and strongly averse to health insurance companies (coefficient = -0.43 [-0.52 to 0.34], P < 0.001), private sector pharmaceutical companies (coefficient = -0.82 [-0.99 to -0.64], P < 0.001), and academic researchers (coefficient = -0.53 [-0.66 to -0.40], P < 0.001) viewing the data.

conclusionsStoring more detailed electronic health data was generally preferred, but respondents were averse to wider access to and sharing of this information. When developing frameworks for the use of electronic health data, policy makers should consider approaches that both highlight the benefits to the individual and minimize the perception of privacy risks.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthElectronic Health RecordsInformation Storage and RetrievalAdultAgedConfidentialityEuropeFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultattitudesdata privacyHealth recordspersonal datapublic preferencesstated preference

Identifiers

PMID27107445
PMCPMC5070520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.