Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37995125›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Public Preferences for Digital Health Data Sharing: Discrete Choice Experiment Study in 12 European Countries.

Roberta Biasiotto, Jennifer Viberg Johansson, Melaku Birhanu Alemu, Virginia Romano, Heidi Beate Bentzen, Jane Kaye, Mirko Ancillotti, Johanna Maria Catharina Blom, Gauthier Chassang, Dara Hallinan and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

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

20 authors at 13 institutions in 13 countries.

Roberta BiasiottoInstitute for Biomedicine (Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck), Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8845-9670
Jennifer Viberg JohanssonCentre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9533-9274
Melaku Birhanu AlemuCurtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1768-6689
Virginia RomanoInstitute for Biomedicine (Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck), Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6594-7284
Heidi Beate BentzenCentre for Medical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8285-818X
Jane KayeCentre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7311-4725
Mirko AncillottiCentre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5748-0672
Johanna Maria Catharina BlomDepartment of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4974-1964
Gauthier ChassangEthics and Biosciences Platform (Genotoul Societal), Genotoul, Centre for Epidemiology and Research in Population Health, UMR1295, Inserm, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6573-4035
Dara HallinanFIZ Karlsruhe - Leibniz-Institut für Informationsinfrastruktur, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1160-821X
Guðbjörg Andrea JónsdóttirSocial Science Research Institute, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.ORCID 0000-0002-8852-9560
Aníbal Monasterio AstobizaDepartamento de Filosofía I, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1399-5388
Emmanuelle Rial-SebbagEthics and Biosciences Platform (Genotoul Societal), Genotoul, Centre for Epidemiology and Research in Population Health, UMR1295, Inserm, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0009-0005-3818-0101
David Rodríguez-AriasFiloLab-UGR, Department of Philosophy 1, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4555-5259
Nisha ShahCentre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1872-4598
Lea SkovgaardCentre for Medical STS (MeST), Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-5491-6928
Ciara StauntonInstitute for Biomedicine (Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck), Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3185-440X
Katharina TschiggInstitute for Biomedicine (Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck), Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5146-3492
Jorien Veldwijk *Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4822-5068
Deborah Mascalzoni *Institute for Biomedicine (Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck), Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4156-1464
Eurac Research · ITUppsala University · SEUniversidad de Granada · ESUniversité Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier · FRUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia · ITCurtin University · AUErasmus University Rotterdam · NLFIZ Karlsruhe – Leibniz Institute for Information Infrastructure · DENorwegian Computing Center · NOThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Iceland · ISUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith new technologies, health data can be collected in a variety of different clinical, research, and public health contexts, and then can be used for a range of new purposes. Establishing the public's views about digital health data sharing is essential for policy makers to develop effective harmonization initiatives for digital health data governance at the European level.

objectiveThis study investigated public preferences for digital health data sharing.

methodsA discrete choice experiment survey was administered to a sample of European residents in 12 European countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) from August 2020 to August 2021. Respondents answered whether hypothetical situations of data sharing were acceptable for them. Each hypothetical scenario was defined by 5 attributes ("data collector," "data user," "reason for data use," "information on data sharing and consent," and "availability of review process"), which had 3 to 4 attribute levels each. A latent class model was run across the whole data set and separately for different European regions (Northern, Central, and Southern Europe). Attribute relative importance was calculated for each latent class's pooled and regional data sets.

resultsA total of 5015 completed surveys were analyzed. In general, the most important attribute for respondents was the availability of information and consent during health data sharing. In the latent class model, 4 classes of preference patterns were identified. While respondents in 2 classes strongly expressed their preferences for data sharing with opposing positions, respondents in the other 2 classes preferred not to share their data, but attribute levels of the situation could have had an impact on their preferences. Respondents generally found the following to be the most acceptable: a national authority or academic research project as the data user; being informed and asked to consent; and a review process for data transfer and use, or transfer only. On the other hand, collection of their data by a technological company and data use for commercial communication were the least acceptable. There was preference heterogeneity across Europe and within European regions.

conclusionsThis study showed the importance of transparency in data use and oversight of health-related data sharing for European respondents. Regional and intraregional preference heterogeneity for "data collector," "data user," "reason," "type of consent," and "review" calls for governance solutions that would grant data subjects the ability to control their digital health data being shared within different contexts. These results suggest that the use of data without consent will demand weighty and exceptional reasons. An interactive and dynamic informed consent model combined with oversight mechanisms may be a solution for policy initiatives aiming to harmonize health data use across Europe.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationAustriaEuropeFranceGermanyHumansdata sharingdata usedigital health datadiscrete choice experimentEuropegovernancepreferencessecondary use of data

Identifiers

PMID37995125
PMCPMC10704315
OpenAlexW4388940677

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.