Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36069794›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2022

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

Sam H A Muller, Ghislaine J M W van Thiel, Marilena Vrana, Menno Mostert, Johannes J M van Delden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Sam H A MullerDepartment of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1800-5443
Ghislaine J M W van ThielDepartment of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1799-1894
Marilena VranaEuropean Heart Network, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2652-369X
Menno MostertDepartment of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8598-7101
Johannes J M van DeldenDepartment of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5530-7275

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients 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.

objectiveThis 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsStudy 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).

conclusionsThis 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.

Indexed as

big datadata-intensive health researchdata sharingethicsgovernancehealth data sharing conditionspatient and public involvementpatient and public preferencespolicyresearch participantstrust

Identifiers

PMID36069794
PMCPMC9494211

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.