Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38361335›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

Community views on the secondary use of general practice data: Findings from a mixed-methods study.

Annette J Braunack-Mayer, Carolyn Adams, Alberto Nettel-Aguirre, Belinda Fabrianesi, Lucy Carolan, Justin Beilby, Felicity Flack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Community views on the secondary use of general practice data: Findings from a mixed-methods study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    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.

Annette J Braunack-MayerAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values (ACHEEV), School of Health and Society, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Carolyn AdamsMacquarie Law School, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Alberto Nettel-AguirreNational Institute for Applied Statistics Research Australia, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Belinda FabrianesiAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values (ACHEEV), School of Health and Society, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8134-7900
Lucy CarolanAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values (ACHEEV), School of Health and Society, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Justin BeilbySchool of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Felicity FlackPopulation Health Research Network, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

Digital Health CRC Ltd DHCRC-0105Population Health Research Network
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGeneral practice data, particularly when combined with hospital and other health service data through data linkage, are increasingly being used for quality assurance, evaluation, health service planning and research. In this study, we explored community views on sharing general practice data for secondary purposes, including research, to establish what concerns and conditions need to be addressed in the process of developing a social licence to support such use.

methodsWe used a mixed-methods approach with focus groups (November-December 2021), followed by a cross-sectional survey (March-April 2022).

resultsThe participants in this study strongly supported sharing general practice data with the clinicians responsible for their care, and where there were direct benefits for individual patients. Over 90% of survey participants (N = 2604) were willing to share their general practice information to directly support their health care, that is, for the primary purpose of collection. There was less support for sharing data for secondary purposes such as research and health service planning (36% and 45% respectively in broad agreement) or for linking general practice data to data in the education, social services and criminal justice systems (30%-36%). A substantial minority of participants were unsure or could not see how benefits would arise from sharing data for secondary purposes. Participants were concerned about the potential for privacy breaches, discrimination and data misuse and they wanted greater transparency and an opportunity to consent to data release.

conclusionThe findings of this study suggest that the public may be more concerned about sharing general practice data for secondary purposes than they are about sharing data collected in other settings. Sharing general practice data more broadly will require careful attention to patient and public concerns, including focusing on the factors that will sustain trust and legitimacy in general practice and GPs. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public were participants in the study. Data produced from their participation generated study findings. CLINICAL

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

General PracticeInformation DisseminationCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareFocus GroupsHumanscommunity viewsdata linkagedata sharingethical issuesgeneral practice dataresearch

Identifiers

PMID38361335
PMCPMC10869884

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.