Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38441944›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

Patient and Public Willingness to Share Personal Health Data for Third-Party or Secondary Uses: Systematic Review.

Rebecca Baines, Sebastian Stevens, Daniela Austin, Krithika Anil, Hannah Bradwell, Leonie Cooper, Inocencio Daniel Maramba, Arunangsu Chatterjee, Simon Leigh

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
24.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca BainesCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9857-1976
Sebastian StevensCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4997-2591
Daniela AustinCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0844-4848
Krithika AnilUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8027-1665
Hannah BradwellCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9103-1069
Leonie CooperCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6382-5224
Inocencio Daniel MarambaCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5464-6021
Arunangsu ChatterjeeCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9506-6007
Simon LeighPrometheus Health Technologies Ltd, Newquay, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6843-6447
University of Plymouth · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternational advances in information communication, eHealth, and other digital health technologies have led to significant expansions in the collection and analysis of personal health data. However, following a series of high-profile data sharing scandals and the emergence of COVID-19, critical exploration of public willingness to share personal health data remains limited, particularly for third-party or secondary uses.

objectiveThis systematic review aims to explore factors that affect public willingness to share personal health data for third-party or secondary uses.

methodsA systematic search of 6 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and SocINDEX) was conducted with review findings analyzed using inductive-thematic analysis and synthesized using a narrative approach.

resultsOf the 13,949 papers identified, 135 were included. Factors most commonly identified as a barrier to data sharing from a public perspective included data privacy, security, and management concerns. Other factors found to influence willingness to share personal health data included the type of data being collected (ie, perceived sensitivity); the type of user requesting their data to be shared, including their perceived motivation, profit prioritization, and ability to directly impact patient care; trust in the data user, as well as in associated processes, often established through individual choice and control over what data are shared with whom, when, and for how long, supported by appropriate models of dynamic consent; the presence of a feedback loop; and clearly articulated benefits or issue relevance including valued incentivization and compensation at both an individual and collective or societal level.

conclusionsThere is general, yet conditional public support for sharing personal health data for third-party or secondary use. Clarity, transparency, and individual control over who has access to what data, when, and for how long are widely regarded as essential prerequisites for public data sharing support. Individual levels of control and choice need to operate within the auspices of assured data privacy and security processes, underpinned by dynamic and responsive models of consent that prioritize individual or collective benefits over and above commercial gain. Failure to understand, design, and refine data sharing approaches in response to changeable patient preferences will only jeopardize the tangible benefits of data sharing practices being fully realized.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationPatientsCommunicationHumansRoutinely Collected Health Datadata privacy and securitydata sharingpatientpersonal health datapublic attitudessecondary usesystematic reviewthird partywillingness to share

Identifiers

PMID38441944
PMCPMC10951832
OpenAlexW4389896630

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.