Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31719029›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2019

Patient Privacy Perspectives on Health Information Exchange in a Mental Health Context: Qualitative Study.

Nelson Shen, Lydia Sequeira, Michelle Pannor Silver, Abigail Carter-Langford, John Strauss, David Wiljer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nelson ShenCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1788-8176
Lydia SequeiraCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2715-3918
Michelle Pannor SilverInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3870-7434
Abigail Carter-LangfordCanada Health Infoway, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5137-4606
John StraussCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2314-2864
David WiljerCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2748-2658
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health · CACanada Health Infoway · CAUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe privacy of patients with mental health conditions is prominent in health information exchange (HIE) discussions, given that their potentially sensitive personal health information (PHI) may be electronically shared for various health care purposes. Currently, the patient privacy perspective in the mental health context is not well understood because of the paucity of in-depth patient privacy research; however, the evidence suggests that patient privacy perspectives are more nuanced than what has been assumed in the academic and health care community.

objectiveThis study aimed to generate an understanding on how patients with mental health conditions feel about privacy in the context of HIE in Canada. This study also sought to identify the factors underpinning their privacy perspectives and explored how their perspectives influenced their attitudes toward HIE.

methodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with patients at a Canadian academic hospital for addictions and mental health. Guided by the Antecedent-Privacy Concern-Outcome macro-model, interview transcripts underwent deductive and inductive thematic analyses.

resultsWe interviewed 14 participants. Their privacy concerns varied, depending on the participant's privacy experiences and health care perceptions. Media reports of privacy breaches and hackers had little impact on participants' privacy concerns because of a fatalistic belief that privacy breaches are a reality in the digital age. Rather, direct observations and experiences with the mistreatment of PHI in health care settings caused concern. Decisions to trust others with PHI depended on past experiences with the individual (or institution) and health care needs. Participants had little knowledge of patient privacy rights and legislation but were willing to participate in HIE because of perceived individual and societal benefits.

conclusionsThis study introduces evidence that patients with mental health conditions would support HIE. Participants were pragmatic, supporting HIE because they wanted the best care possible. They also understood that their PHI was critical in supporting the single-payer Canadian health care system. Participant health care experiences informed their privacy perspectives, trust, and PHI sharing attitudes-all accentuating the importance of the patient experience in building trust in HIE. Their lack of knowledge about patient rights and PHI uses highlights the degree of trust they have in the health care system to protect their privacy. These findings suggest that the patient privacy discourse should extend beyond the oft-cited barrier of patient privacy concerns to include discussions about building trust, communicating the benefits of HIE, and improving patient experiences. Although our findings are in the Canadian context, this study highlights the importance of engaging patients in privacy policy discussions, regardless of jurisdiction, to ensure their nuanced perspectives are reflected in policy decisions on their PHI.

Indexed as

attitude to healthhealth information exchangehealth information technologyprivacytrust

Identifiers

PMID31719029
PMCPMC6881785
OpenAlexW2990434229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.