Literature DB >> 35699571

Building trust in research through information and intent transparency with health information: representative cross-sectional survey of 502 US adults.

Sabrina Mangal1, Leslie Park1, Meghan Reading Turchioe1, Jacky Choi1, Stephanie Niño de Rivera1, Annie Myers1, Parag Goyal2, Lydia Dugdale3, Ruth Masterson Creber1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Participation in healthcare research shapes health policy and practice; however, low trust is a barrier to participation. We evaluated whether returning health information (information transparency) and disclosing intent of data use (intent transparency) impacts trust in research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an online survey with a representative sample of 502 US adults. We assessed baseline trust and change in trust using 6 use cases representing the Social-Ecological Model. We assessed descriptive statistics and associations between trust and sociodemographic variables using logistic and multinomial regression.
RESULTS: Most participants (84%) want their health research information returned. Black/African American participants were more likely to increase trust in research with individual information transparency (odds ratio (OR) 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-4.34]) and with intent transparency when sharing with chosen friends and family (3.66 [1.98-6.77]), doctors and nurses (1.96 [1.10-3.65]), or health tech companies (1.87 [1.02-3.40]). Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Multirace, and individuals with a race not listed, were more likely to increase trust when sharing with health policy makers (1.88 [1.09-3.30]). Women were less likely to increase trust when sharing with friends and family (0.55 [0.35-0.87]) or health tech companies (0.46 [0.31-0.70]). DISCUSSION: Participants wanted their health information returned and would increase their trust in research with transparency when sharing health information.
CONCLUSION: Trust in research is influenced by interrelated factors. Future research should recruit diverse samples with lower baseline trust levels to explore changes in trust, with variation on the type of information shared.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  health informatics; patient-reported outcomes; recruitment; transparency; trust

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35699571      PMCID: PMC9382374          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocac084

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   7.942


  41 in total

1.  Beyond Tuskegee - Vaccine Distrust and Everyday Racism.

Authors:  Simar Singh Bajaj; Fatima Cody Stanford
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Health Disparities Research with American Indian Communities: The Importance of Trust and Transparency.

Authors:  Monica C Skewes; Vivian M Gonzalez; Julie A Gameon; Paula FireMoon; Emily Salois; Stacy M Rasmus; Jordan P Lewis; Scott A Gardner; Adriann Ricker; Martel Reum
Journal:  Am J Community Psychol       Date:  2020-07-11

3.  Physician understanding, explainability, and trust in a hypothetical machine learning risk calculator.

Authors:  William K Diprose; Nicholas Buist; Ning Hua; Quentin Thurier; George Shand; Reece Robinson
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  More than Tuskegee: understanding mistrust about research participation.

Authors:  Darcell P Scharff; Katherine J Mathews; Pamela Jackson; Jonathan Hoffsuemmer; Emeobong Martin; Dorothy Edwards
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2010-08

5.  Are Patients With Cancer Less Willing to Share Their Health Information? Privacy, Sensitivity, and Social Purpose.

Authors:  David Grande; David A Asch; Fei Wan; Angela R Bradbury; Reshma Jagsi; Nandita Mitra
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 3.840

6.  Understanding of Physical Activity in Social Ecological Perspective: Application of Multilevel Model.

Authors:  Yoongu Lee; Sanghyun Park
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-03-05

7.  Informatics-enabled citizen science to advance health equity.

Authors:  Rupa S Valdez; Don E Detmer; Philip Bourne; Katherine K Kim; Robin Austin; Anna McCollister; Courtney C Rogers; Karen C Waters-Wicks
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.497

8.  Integrating community-based participatory research and informatics approaches to improve the engagement and health of underserved populations.

Authors:  Kim M Unertl; Chris L Schaefbauer; Terrance R Campbell; Charles Senteio; Katie A Siek; Suzanne Bakken; Tiffany C Veinot
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  Socio-ecological Model as a Framework for Overcoming Barriers and Challenges in Randomized Control Trials in Minority and Underserved Communities.

Authors:  Hamisu M Salihu; Ronee E Wilson; Lindsey M King; Phillip J Marty; Valerie E Whiteman
Journal:  Int J MCH AIDS       Date:  2015
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.