Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37972118›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Public preference on sharing health data to inform research, health policy and clinical practice in Australia: A stated preference experiment.

Richard J Varhol, Richard Norman, Sean Randall, Crystal Man Ying Lee, Luke Trevenen, James H Boyd, Suzanne Robinson

Open access · goldAbstract 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 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Richard J VarholSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3608-400X
Richard NormanSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Sean RandallDeakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Crystal Man Ying LeeSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Luke TrevenenSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
James H BoydSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Suzanne RobinsonSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Curtin University · AUDeakin University · AULa Trobe University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate public willingness to share sensitive health information for research, health policy and clinical practice.

methodsA total of 1,003 Australian respondents answered an online, attribute-driven, survey in which participants were asked to accept or reject hypothetical choice sets based on a willingness to share their health data for research and frontline-medical support as part of an integrated health system. The survey consisted of 5 attributes: Stakeholder access for analysis (Analysing group); Type of information collected; Purpose of data collection; Information governance; and Anticipated benefit; the results of which were analysed using logistic regression.

resultsWhen asked about their preference for sharing their health data, respondents had no preference between data collection for the purposes of clinical practice, health policy or research, with a slight preference for having government organisations manage, govern and curate the integrated datasets from which the analysis was being conducted. The least preferred option was for personal health records to be integrated with insurance records or for their data collected by privately owned corporate organisations. Individuals preferred their data to be analysed by a public healthcare provider or government staff and expressed a dislike for any private company involvement.

conclusionsThe findings from this study suggest that Australian consumers prefer to share their health data when there is government oversight, and have concerns about sharing their anonymised health data for clinical practice, health policy or research purposes unless clarity is provided pertaining to its intended purpose, limitations of use and restrictions to access. Similar findings have been observed in the limited set of existing international studies utilising a stated preference approach. Evident from this study, and supported by national and international research, is that the establishment and preservation of a social license for data linkage in health research will require routine public engagement as a result of continuously evolving technological advancements and fluctuating risk tolerance. Without more work to understand and address stakeholder concerns, consumers risk being reluctant to participate in data-sharing and linkage programmes.

Indexed as

Health PolicyHealth Records, PersonalAustraliaHumansInformation DisseminationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37972118
PMCPMC10653479
OpenAlexW4388721195

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.