Abby E Rudolph1, April M Young2, Jennifer R Havens3. 1. Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Boston, MA 02118, USA. Electronic address: arudolph@bu.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY 40536, USA; Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY 40536, USA. Electronic address: april.young@uky.edu. 3. Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY 40536, USA. Electronic address: jhave2@uky.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Analyses that link contextual factors with individual-level data can improve our understanding of the "risk environment"; however, the accuracy of information provided by participants about locations where illegal/stigmatized behaviors occur may be influenced by privacy/confidentiality concerns that may vary by setting and/or data collection approach. METHODS: We recruited thirty-five persons who use drugs from a rural Appalachian town and a Mid-Atlantic city to participate in in-depth interviews. Through thematic analyses, we identified and compared privacy/confidentiality concerns associated with two survey methods that (1) collect self-reported addresses/cross-streets and (2) use an interactive web-based map to find/confirm locations in rural and urban settings. RESULTS: Concerns differed more by setting than between methods. For example, (1) rural participants valued interviewer rapport and protections provided by the Certificate of Confidentiality more; (2) locations considered to be sensitive differed in rural (i.e., others' homes) and urban (i.e., where drugs were used) settings; and (3) urban participants were more likely to view providing cross-streets as an acceptable alternative to providing exact addresses for sensitive locations and to prefer the web-based map approach. CONCLUSION: Rural-urban differences in privacy/confidentiality concerns reflect contextual differences (i.e., where drugs are used/purchased, population density, and prior drug-related arrests). Strategies to alleviate concerns include: (1) obtain a Certificate of Confidentiality, (2) collect geographic data at the scale necessary for proposed analyses, and (3) permit participants to provide intersections/landmarks in close proximity to actual locations rather than exact addresses or to skip questions where providing an intersection/landmark would not obfuscate the actual address.
BACKGROUND: Analyses that link contextual factors with individual-level data can improve our understanding of the "risk environment"; however, the accuracy of information provided by participants about locations where illegal/stigmatized behaviors occur may be influenced by privacy/confidentiality concerns that may vary by setting and/or data collection approach. METHODS: We recruited thirty-five persons who use drugs from a rural Appalachian town and a Mid-Atlantic city to participate in in-depth interviews. Through thematic analyses, we identified and compared privacy/confidentiality concerns associated with two survey methods that (1) collect self-reported addresses/cross-streets and (2) use an interactive web-based map to find/confirm locations in rural and urban settings. RESULTS: Concerns differed more by setting than between methods. For example, (1) rural participants valued interviewer rapport and protections provided by the Certificate of Confidentiality more; (2) locations considered to be sensitive differed in rural (i.e., others' homes) and urban (i.e., where drugs were used) settings; and (3) urban participants were more likely to view providing cross-streets as an acceptable alternative to providing exact addresses for sensitive locations and to prefer the web-based map approach. CONCLUSION: Rural-urban differences in privacy/confidentiality concerns reflect contextual differences (i.e., where drugs are used/purchased, population density, and prior drug-related arrests). Strategies to alleviate concerns include: (1) obtain a Certificate of Confidentiality, (2) collect geographic data at the scale necessary for proposed analyses, and (3) permit participants to provide intersections/landmarks in close proximity to actual locations rather than exact addresses or to skip questions where providing an intersection/landmark would not obfuscate the actual address.
Authors: Tim Rhodes; Merrill Singer; Philippe Bourgois; Samuel R Friedman; Steffanie A Strathdee Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2005-03-19 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Tommi L Gaines; Daniel Werb; Jaime Arredondo; Victor M Alaniz; Carlos Vilalta; Leo Beletsky Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Tommi L Gaines; Leo Beletsky; Jaime Arredondo; Daniel Werb; Gudelia Rangel; Alicia Vera; Kimberly Brouwer Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Samuel R Friedman; Leslie Williams; April M Young; Jennifer Teubl; Dimitrios Paraskevis; Evangelia Kostaki; Carl Latkin; Danielle German; Pedro Mateu-Gelabert; Honoria Guarino; Tetyana I Vasylyeva; Britt Skaathun; John Schneider; Ania Korobchuk; Pavlo Smyrnov; Georgios Nikolopoulos Journal: Curr HIV/AIDS Rep Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.071
Authors: Roman Shrestha; Celia Fisher; Jeffrey A Wickersham; Antoine Khati; Rayne Kim; Iskandar Azwa; Colleen Mistler; Lloyd Goldsamt Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2021-12-16