Literature DB >> 23958803

Public preferences about secondary uses of electronic health information.

David Grande1, Nandita Mitra, Anand Shah, Fei Wan, David A Asch.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23958803      PMCID: PMC4083587          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9166

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  28 in total

1.  Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: what is the opinion of the Canadian public?

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

2.  Reforming the HIPAA Privacy Rule: safeguarding privacy and promoting research.

Authors:  Lawrence O Gostin; Sharyl Nass
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Ownership of medical information.

Authors:  Mark A Hall; Kevin A Schulman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Privacy versus public health: the impact of current confidentiality rules.

Authors:  Daniel Wartenberg; W Douglas Thompson
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2010-01-14       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  The obligation to participate in biomedical research.

Authors:  G Owen Schaefer; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Alan Wertheimer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-07-01       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Development of a revised Health Care System Distrust scale.

Authors:  Judy A Shea; Ellyn Micco; Lorraine T Dean; Suzanne McMurphy; J Sanford Schwartz; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects.

Authors:  Ezekiel J Emanuel; Jerry Menikoff
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-07-25       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Race, medical researcher distrust, perceived harm, and willingness to participate in cardiovascular prevention trials.

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

9.  Consent for use of personal information for health research: do people with potentially stigmatizing health conditions and the general public differ in their opinions?

Authors:  Donald J Willison; Valerie Steeves; Cathy Charles; Lisa Schwartz; Jennifer Ranford; Gina Agarwal; Ji Cheng; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2009-07-24       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: insights from a public dialogue.

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

View more
  61 in total

1.  From Pharmacovigilance to Clinical Care Optimization.

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

2.  Does an interactive trust-enhanced electronic consent improve patient experiences when asked to share their health records for research? A randomized trial.

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

3.  Prevalence and correlates of nicotine and nicotine product perceptions in U.S. young adults, 2016.

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

4.  Identifying "social smoking" U.S. young adults using an empirically-driven approach.

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

5.  Awareness of breast density and its impact on breast cancer detection and risk.

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

6.  Prospective associations between nicotine beliefs and tobacco-related susceptibility, curiosity, and use in U.S. adults.

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

7.  Comparison of consumers' views on electronic data sharing for healthcare and research.

Authors:  Katherine K Kim; Jill G Joseph; Lucila Ohno-Machado
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2015-03-30       Impact factor: 4.497

8.  Patient preferences toward an interactive e-consent application for research using electronic health records.

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

9.  Patterns of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Substance Use Among Young Adult Peer Crowds.

Authors:  Meghan Bridgid Moran; Andrea C Villanti; Amanda Johnson; Jessica Rath
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Using Digital Technology to Engage and Communicate with Patients: A Survey of Patient Attitudes.

Authors:  Brian P Jenssen; Nandita Mitra; Anand Shah; Fei Wan; David Grande
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.