Literature DB >> 22306206

Perspectives of Australian adults about protecting the privacy of their health information in statistical databases.

Tatiana King1, Ljiljana Brankovic, Patricia Gillard.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to discover the public's attitude and views towards privacy in health care. This is a part of a larger project which aims to gain an insight into what kind of privacy is needed and develop technical measures to provide such privacy.
METHODS: The study was a two-stage process which combined qualitative and quantitative research. Stage One of the study comprised arranging and facilitating focus groups while in Stage Two we conducted a social survey. MEASUREMENTS: We measured attitudes towards privacy, medical research and consent; privacy concern about sharing one's health information for research; privacy concern about the possibility that some specific information from medical records could be linked to the patient's name in a situation that was not related to medical treatment.
RESULTS: The results of the study revealed both great support for medical research (98%), and concern about privacy of health information (66%). Participants prefer to be asked for their permission before their health information is used for any purpose other than medical treatment (92%), and they would like to know the organisation and details of the research before allowing the use of their health records (83%). Age, level of education, place of birth and employment status are most strongly associated with privacy concerns. The study showed that there are some particularly sensitive issues and there is a concern (42-60%) about any possibility of linking these kinds of data to the patient's name in a situation that is not related to medical treatment. Such issues include sexually transmitted diseases, abortions and infertility, family medical history/genetic disorders, mental illness, drug/alcohol related incidents, lists of previous operations/procedures/dates and current medications.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants believe they should be asked for permission before their health information is used for any purpose other than medical treatment. However, consent and privacy concerns are not necessary related. Assuring individuals that their personal health information is de-identified reduces their concern about the necessity of consent for releasing health information for research purposes, but many people are not aware that removing their names and other direct identifiers from medical records does not guarantee full privacy protection for their health information. Privacy concerns decrease as extra security measures are introduced to protect privacy. Therefore, instead of "tailoring concern" as proposed by Willison we suggest improving privacy protection of personal information by introducing additional security measures in data publishing. Copyright Â
© 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22306206     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.01.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Med Inform        ISSN: 1386-5056            Impact factor:   4.046


  25 in total

1.  R-U policy frontiers for health data de-identification.

Authors:  Weiyi Xia; Raymond Heatherly; Xiaofeng Ding; Jiuyong Li; Bradley A Malin
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Improving Individual Acceptance of Health Clouds through Confidentiality Assurance.

Authors:  Tatiana Ermakova; Benjamin Fabian; Rüdiger Zarnekow
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 2.342

3.  Joint replacement recipients' views about health information privacy.

Authors:  Amanda L Terry; Bert M Chesworth; Robert B Bourne; Paul Stolee; Mark Speechley
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  State of the art and a mixed-method personalized approach to assess patient perceptions on medical record sharing and sensitivity.

Authors:  Hiral Soni; Adela Grando; Anita Murcko; Sabrina Diaz; Madhumita Mukundan; Nassim Idouraine; George Karway; Michael Todd; Darwyn Chern; Christy Dye; Mary Jo Whitfield
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 6.317

5.  Genetic data sharing and privacy.

Authors:  Marco D Sorani; John K Yue; Sourabh Sharma; Geoffrey T Manley; Adam R Ferguson
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2015-01

6.  Patient informed governance of distributed research networks: results and discussion from six patient focus groups.

Authors:  Laura A Mamo; Dennis K Browe; Holly C Logan; Katherine K Kim
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16

7.  Population attitudes towards research use of health care registries: a population-based survey in Finland.

Authors:  Katariina Eloranta; Anssi Auvinen
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 2.652

8.  Ethical issues in biomedical research using electronic health records: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jan Piasecki; Ewa Walkiewicz-Żarek; Justyna Figas-Skrzypulec; Anna Kordecka; Vilius Dranseika
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2021-06-19

9.  Co-development of a Best Practice Checklist for Mental Health Data Science: A Delphi Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Kirkham; Catherine J Crompton; Matthew H Iveson; Iona Beange; Andrew M McIntosh; Sue Fletcher-Watson
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 4.157

Review 10.  The acceptability of conducting data linkage research without obtaining consent: lay people's views and justifications.

Authors:  Vicki Xafis
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.