David Grande1, Nandita Mitra, Anand Shah, Fei Wan, David A Asch. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia2Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: As health information technology grows, secondary uses of personal health information offer promise in advancing research, public health, and health care. Public perceptions about sharing personal health data are important for establishing and evaluating ethical and regulatory structures to oversee the use of these data. OBJECTIVE: To measure patient preferences about sharing their electronic health information for secondary purposes (other than their own health care). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this conjoint analysis study, we surveyed 3336 adults (568 Hispanic, 500 non-Hispanic African American, and 2268 non-Hispanic white); participants were randomized to 6 of 18 scenarios describing secondary uses of electronic health information, constructed with 3 attributes: uses (research, quality improvement, or commercial marketing), users (university hospitals, commercial enterprises, or public health departments), and data sensitivity (whether it included genetic information about their own cancer risk). This design enabled participants to reveal their preferences for secondary uses of their personal health information. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Participants responded to each conjoint scenario by rating their willingness to share their electronic personal health information on a 1 to 10 scale (1 represents low willingness; 10, high willingness). Conjoint analysis yields importance weights reflecting the contribution of a dimension (use, user, or sensitivity) to willingness to share personal health information. RESULTS: The use of data was a more important factor in the conjoint analysis (importance weight, 64.3%) than the user (importance weight, 32.6%) and data sensitivity (importance weight, 3.1%). In unadjusted linear regression models, marketing uses (β = -1.55), quality improvement uses (β = -0.51), drug company users (β = -0.80), and public health department users (β = -0.52) were associated with less willingness to share health information than research uses and university hospital users (all P < .001). Hispanics and African Americans differentiated less than whites between uses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants cared most about the specific purpose for using their health information, although differences were smaller among racial and ethnic minorities. The user of the information was of secondary importance, and the sensitivity was not a significant factor. These preferences should be considered in policies governing secondary uses of health information.
RCT Entities:
IMPORTANCE: As health information technology grows, secondary uses of personal health information offer promise in advancing research, public health, and health care. Public perceptions about sharing personal health data are important for establishing and evaluating ethical and regulatory structures to oversee the use of these data. OBJECTIVE: To measure patient preferences about sharing their electronic health information for secondary purposes (other than their own health care). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this conjoint analysis study, we surveyed 3336 adults (568 Hispanic, 500 non-Hispanic African American, and 2268 non-Hispanic white); participants were randomized to 6 of 18 scenarios describing secondary uses of electronic health information, constructed with 3 attributes: uses (research, quality improvement, or commercial marketing), users (university hospitals, commercial enterprises, or public health departments), and data sensitivity (whether it included genetic information about their own cancer risk). This design enabled participants to reveal their preferences for secondary uses of their personal health information. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Participants responded to each conjoint scenario by rating their willingness to share their electronic personal health information on a 1 to 10 scale (1 represents low willingness; 10, high willingness). Conjoint analysis yields importance weights reflecting the contribution of a dimension (use, user, or sensitivity) to willingness to share personal health information. RESULTS: The use of data was a more important factor in the conjoint analysis (importance weight, 64.3%) than the user (importance weight, 32.6%) and data sensitivity (importance weight, 3.1%). In unadjusted linear regression models, marketing uses (β = -1.55), quality improvement uses (β = -0.51), drug company users (β = -0.80), and public health department users (β = -0.52) were associated with less willingness to share health information than research uses and university hospital users (all P < .001). Hispanics and African Americans differentiated less than whites between uses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants cared most about the specific purpose for using their health information, although differences were smaller among racial and ethnic minorities. The user of the information was of secondary importance, and the sensitivity was not a significant factor. These preferences should be considered in policies governing secondary uses of health information.
Authors: Donald J Willison; Lisa Schwartz; Julia Abelson; Cathy Charles; Marilyn Swinton; David Northrup; Lehana Thabane Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Joel B Braunstein; Noëlle S Sherber; Steven P Schulman; Eric L Ding; Neil R Powe Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Donald J Willison; Marilyn Swinton; Lisa Schwartz; Julia Abelson; Cathy Charles; David Northrup; Ji Cheng; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2008-11-19 Impact factor: 2.652
Authors: Leo Anthony Celi; Edward Moseley; Christopher Moses; Padhraig Ryan; Melek Somai; David Stone; Kai-Ou Tang Journal: Big Data Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 2.128
Authors: Christopher A Harle; Elizabeth H Golembiewski; Kiarash P Rahmanian; Babette Brumback; Janice L Krieger; Kenneth W Goodman; Arch G Mainous; Ray E Moseley Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Andrea C Villanti; Shelly Naud; Julia C West; Jennifer L Pearson; Olivia A Wackowski; Raymond S Niaura; Elizabeth Hair; Jessica M Rath Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Andrea C Villanti; Amanda L Johnson; Jessica M Rath; Valerie Williams; Donna M Vallone; David B Abrams; Donald Hedeker; Robin J Mermelstein Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Deborah J Rhodes; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah M Jenkins; Celine M Vachon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrea C Villanti; Shelly Naud; Julia C West; Jennifer L Pearson; Olivia A Wackowski; Elizabeth Hair; Raymond S Niaura; Jessica M Rath Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Christopher A Harle; Elizabeth H Golembiewski; Kiarash P Rahmanian; Janice L Krieger; Dorothy Hagmajer; Arch G Mainous; Ray E Moseley Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497