1
|
Baines R, Stevens S, Austin D, Anil K, Bradwell H, Cooper L, Maramba ID, Chatterjee A, Leigh S. Patient and Public Willingness to Share Personal Health Data for Third-Party or Secondary Uses: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res 2024; 26:e50421. [PMID: 38441944 PMCID: PMC10951832 DOI: 10.2196/50421] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2023] [Revised: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 12/18/2023] [Indexed: 03/07/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND International advances in information communication, eHealth, and other digital health technologies have led to significant expansions in the collection and analysis of personal health data. However, following a series of high-profile data sharing scandals and the emergence of COVID-19, critical exploration of public willingness to share personal health data remains limited, particularly for third-party or secondary uses. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims to explore factors that affect public willingness to share personal health data for third-party or secondary uses. METHODS A systematic search of 6 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and SocINDEX) was conducted with review findings analyzed using inductive-thematic analysis and synthesized using a narrative approach. RESULTS Of the 13,949 papers identified, 135 were included. Factors most commonly identified as a barrier to data sharing from a public perspective included data privacy, security, and management concerns. Other factors found to influence willingness to share personal health data included the type of data being collected (ie, perceived sensitivity); the type of user requesting their data to be shared, including their perceived motivation, profit prioritization, and ability to directly impact patient care; trust in the data user, as well as in associated processes, often established through individual choice and control over what data are shared with whom, when, and for how long, supported by appropriate models of dynamic consent; the presence of a feedback loop; and clearly articulated benefits or issue relevance including valued incentivization and compensation at both an individual and collective or societal level. CONCLUSIONS There is general, yet conditional public support for sharing personal health data for third-party or secondary use. Clarity, transparency, and individual control over who has access to what data, when, and for how long are widely regarded as essential prerequisites for public data sharing support. Individual levels of control and choice need to operate within the auspices of assured data privacy and security processes, underpinned by dynamic and responsive models of consent that prioritize individual or collective benefits over and above commercial gain. Failure to understand, design, and refine data sharing approaches in response to changeable patient preferences will only jeopardize the tangible benefits of data sharing practices being fully realized.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Baines
- Centre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom
| | - Sebastian Stevens
- Centre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom
- Prometheus Health Technologies Ltd, Newquay, United Kingdom
| | - Daniela Austin
- Centre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom
| | | | - Hannah Bradwell
- Centre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom
| | - Leonie Cooper
- Centre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom
| | | | - Arunangsu Chatterjee
- Centre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom
- School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Simon Leigh
- Prometheus Health Technologies Ltd, Newquay, United Kingdom
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Conventry, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Killeen SL, Byrne DF, Geraghty AA, Yelverton CA, van Sinderen D, Cotter PD, Murphy EF, O’Reilly SL, McAuliffe FM. Recruiting and Engaging Women of Reproductive Age with Obesity: Insights from A Mixed-Methods Study within A Trial. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:13832. [PMID: 36360712 PMCID: PMC9658053 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192113832] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2022] [Revised: 10/14/2022] [Accepted: 10/17/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
Engaging women with obesity in health-related studies during preconception is challenging. Limited data exists relating to their participation. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences and opinions of women participating in a weight-related, preconception trial. This is an explanatory sequential (quan-QUAL) mixed-methods Study Within A Trial, embedded in the GetGutsy randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN11295995). Screened participants completed an online survey of eight questions (single or multiple choice and Likert scale) on recruitment, motivations and opinions on study activities. Participants with abdominal obesity (waist circumference ≥ 80 cm) were invited to a subsequent semi-structured, online focus group (n = 2, 9 participants) that was transcribed and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis, with a pragmatic epistemological approach. The survey (n = 102) showed the main research participation motivations were supporting health research (n = 38, 37.3%) and wanting health screening (n = 30, 29.4%). Most participants were recruited via email (n = 35, 34.7%) or social media (n = 15, 14.7%). In the FGs, participants valued flexibility, convenience and. research methods that aligned with their lifestyles. Participants had an expanded view of health that considered emotional well-being and balance alongside more traditional medical assessments. Clinical trialists should consider well-being, addressing the interconnectedness of health and incorporate a variety of research activities to engage women of reproductive age with obesity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Louise Killeen
- UCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, D02 YH21 Dublin, Ireland
| | - David F. Byrne
- UCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, D02 YH21 Dublin, Ireland
| | - Aisling A. Geraghty
- UCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, D02 YH21 Dublin, Ireland
- UCD Institute of Food and Health, School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland
| | - Cara A. Yelverton
- UCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, D02 YH21 Dublin, Ireland
| | - Douwe van Sinderen
- APC Microbiome Ireland, Biosciences Research Institute, National University of Ireland, T12 K8AF Cork, Ireland
- School of Microbiology, National University of Ireland, T12 K8AF Cork, Ireland
| | - Paul D. Cotter
- APC Microbiome Ireland, Biosciences Research Institute, National University of Ireland, T12 K8AF Cork, Ireland
- Teagasc Food Research Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, P61 C996 Cork, Ireland
| | - Eileen F. Murphy
- Precision Biotics Ltd. (Novozymes Cork), Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, T12 D292 Cork, Ireland
| | - Sharleen L. O’Reilly
- UCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, D02 YH21 Dublin, Ireland
- UCD Institute of Food and Health, School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland
| | - Fionnuala M. McAuliffe
- UCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, D02 YH21 Dublin, Ireland
- APC Microbiome Ireland, Biosciences Research Institute, National University of Ireland, T12 K8AF Cork, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ko LK, Scarinci IC, Bouchard EG, Drake BF, Rodriguez EM, Chen MS, Kepka D, Kruse-Diehr AJ, Befort C, Shannon J, Farris PE, Trentham-Dietz A, Onega T. A Framework for Equitable Partnerships to Promote Cancer Prevention and Control in Rural Settings. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2022; 6:pkac017. [PMID: 35603844 PMCID: PMC8997116 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkac017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2021] [Revised: 12/29/2021] [Accepted: 01/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Rural populations continue to experience persistent cancer disparities compared with urban populations particularly in cancers that can be prevented or detected early through screening and vaccination. Although the National Cancer Institute and the larger cancer research community have identified rural community partnerships as the foundation for reducing the disparities, we have identified limited application of community-based participatory research in cancer prevention and control research. Guided by the Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model and our collective experience, we provide a framework for a community-cancer center partnership that focuses on promoting health equity. In this commentary, we articulate that the partnership process must foster capacity for communities and cancer centers, strive for rural representation in clinical trials and biobanking, build a pipeline for dissemination and implementation research, and create a bidirectional flow of knowledge between communities and academic institutions. Authentic partnerships with rural communities should be the ultimate goal of cancer centers, and the process described in this commentary can serve as an initial platform to build capacity and continue to strive toward that goal.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linda K Ko
- Department of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Hans Rosling Center for Population Health, Seattle, WA, USA
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Isabel C Scarinci
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Elizabeth G Bouchard
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Bettina F Drake
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Elisa M Rodriguez
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Moon S Chen
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, School of Medicine, UC Davis and UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Deanna Kepka
- College of Nursing, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Aaron J Kruse-Diehr
- Markey Cancer Center, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Christie Befort
- University of Kansas Medical Center, Cancer Prevention and Control, University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Jackilen Shannon
- Oregon Health & Science University-Portland State University School of Public Health, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Paige E Farris
- Oregon Health & Science University-Portland State University School of Public Health, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Tracy Onega
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Houghton C, Dowling M, Meskell P, Hunter A, Gardner H, Conway A, Treweek S, Sutcliffe K, Noyes J, Devane D, Nicholas JR, Biesty LM. Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 10:MR000045. [PMID: 33026107 PMCID: PMC8078544 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.mr000045.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies. OBJECTIVES To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix. MAIN RESULTS We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catherine Houghton
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Maura Dowling
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Pauline Meskell
- Department of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| | - Andrew Hunter
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Heidi Gardner
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Aislinn Conway
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Shaun Treweek
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Katy Sutcliffe
- Department of Social Science, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK
| | - Jane Noyes
- Centre for Health-Related Research, Fron Heulog, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Declan Devane
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Jane R Nicholas
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Linda M Biesty
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|