Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36862723›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Examining public views on decentralised health data sharing.

Victoria Neumann, Gail Davidge, Mike Harding, James Cunningham, Nigel Davies, Sarah Devaney, Gary Leeming, Søren Holm, John Ainsworth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

9 authors.

Victoria NeumannSchool of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4912-6048
Gail DavidgeCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Mike HardingSchool of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
James CunninghamDivision of Informatics, Imaging & Data Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Nigel DaviesSchool of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Sarah DevaneyCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Gary LeemingCivic Data Cooperative, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5554-5302
Søren HolmCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
John AinsworthDivision of Informatics, Imaging & Data Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, researchers have begun to explore the use of Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT), also known as blockchain, in health data sharing contexts. However, there is a significant lack of research that examines public attitudes towards the use of this technology. In this paper, we begin to address this issue and present results from a series of focus groups which explored public views and concerns about engaging with new models of personal health data sharing in the UK. We found that participants were broadly in favour of a shift towards new decentralised models of data sharing. Retaining 'proof' of health information stored about patients and the capacity to provide permanent audit trails, enabled by immutable and transparent properties of DLT, were regarded as particularly valuable for our participants and prospective data custodians. Participants also identified other potential benefits such as supporting people to become more health data literate and enabling patients to make informed decisions about how their data was shared and with whom. However, participants also voiced concerns about the potential to further exacerbate existing health and digital inequalities. Participants were also apprehensive about the removal of intermediaries in the design of personal health informatics systems.

Indexed as

BlockchainInformation DisseminationFocus GroupsHumansLiteracyProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36862723
PMCPMC9980819

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.