A pilot comparison of medical records sensitivity perspectives of patients with behavioral health conditions and healthcare providers

Use of aspirin in cardiovascular disease prevention-the role of online information search

OBJECTIVES

This study intends to examine influences of online information search on the use of aspirin in cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) prevention among the applicable adult population in the United States.

METHODS

We used data of 2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Our study sample is limited to adults age 40 or older to be consistent with the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation (AHA/ACCF) guidelines for aspirin use. Linear probability models were used to test the association between patient's aspirin use behaviors and the variables of interest in four separate models.

RESULTS

Our results show that the use of aspirin for CVD prevention was associated with online health information seeking in different ways. When patients received doctors' advice to use aspirin, online information seeking has a negative influence, depending on whether the individual has CVD risk factors. However, for patients without recommendations from providers, the effects of online information seeking on self-initiated aspirin use depend on the different types of preventions (primary vs. secondary) and CVD risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Overall, online health information might lead to both overuse and underuse of aspirin in CVD preventions. Findings in this study may lead to decision-making that is not consistent with advice from healthcare professionals and/or established clinical guidelines.

Views on sharing mental health data for research purposes: qualitative analysis of interviews with people with mental illness

BACKGROUND

Improving the ways in which routinely-collected mental health data are shared could facilitate substantial advances in research and treatment. However, this process should only be undertaken in partnership with those who provide such data. Despite relatively widespread investigation of public perspectives on health data sharing more generally, there is a lack of research on the views of people with mental illness.

METHODS

Twelve people with lived experience of mental illness took part in semi-structured interviews via online video software. Participants had experience of a broad range of mental health conditions including anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addiction. Interview questions sought to establish how participants felt about the use of routinely-collected health data for research purposes, covering different types of health data, what health data should be used for, and any concerns around its use.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified four overarching themes: benefits of sharing mental health data, concerns about sharing mental health data, safeguards, and data types. Participants were clear that health data sharing should facilitate improved scientific knowledge and better treatments for mental illness. There were concerns that data misuse could become another way in which individuals and society discriminate against people with mental illness, for example through insurance premiums or employment decisions. Despite this there was a generally positive attitude to sharing mental health data as long as appropriate safeguards were in place.

CONCLUSIONS

There was notable strength of feeling across participants that more should be done to reduce the suffering caused by mental illness, and that this could be partly facilitated by well-managed sharing of health data. The mental health research community could build on this generally positive attitude to mental health data sharing by following rigorous best practice tailored to the specific concerns of people with mental illness.

An ethical code for collecting, using and transferring sensitive health data: outcomes of a modified Policy Delphi process in Singapore

One of the core goals of Digital Health Technologies (DHT) is to transform healthcare services and delivery by shifting primary care from hospitals into the community. However, achieving this goal will rely on the collection, use and storage of large datasets. Some of these datasets will be linked to multiple sources, and may include highly sensitive health information that needs to be transferred across institutional and jurisdictional boundaries. The growth of DHT has outpaced the establishment of clear legal pathways to facilitate the collection, use and transfer of potentially sensitive health data. Our study aimed to address this gap with an ethical code to guide researchers developing DHT with international collaborative partners in Singapore. We generated this code using a modified Policy Delphi process designed to engage stakeholders in the deliberation of health data ethics and governance. This paper reports the outcomes of this process along with the key components of the code and identifies areas for future research.

Physicians differ in their perceptions of sensitive medical records: Survey and interview study

Physician categorizations of electronic health record (EHR) data (e.g., depression) into sensitive data categories (e.g., Mental Health) and their perspectives on the adequacy of the categories to classify medical record data were assessed. One thousand data items from patient EHR were classified by 20 physicians (10 psychiatrists paired with ten non-psychiatrist physicians) into data categories via a survey. Cluster-adjusted chi square tests and mixed models were used for analysis. 10 items were selected per each physician pair (100 items in total) for discussion during 20 follow-up interviews. Interviews were thematically analyzed. Survey item categorization yielded 500 (50.0%) agreements, 175 (17.5%) disagreements, 325 (32.5%) partial agreements. Categorization disagreements were associated with physician specialty and implied patient history. Non-psychiatrists selected significantly (p = .016) more data categories than psychiatrists when classifying data items. The endorsement of Mental Health and Substance Use categories were significantly (p = .001) related for both provider types. During thematic analysis, Encounter Diagnosis (100%), Problems (95%), Health Concerns (90%), and Medications (85%) were discussed the most when deciding the sensitivity of medical information. Most (90.0%) interview participants suggested adding additional data categories. Study findings may guide the evolution of digital patient-controlled granular data sharing technology and processes.

My data choices: Pilot evaluation of patient-controlled medical record sharing technology

Patients desire greater control over sharing their digital health data. Consent2Share (C2S) is an open-source consent tool offered by SAMHA and the VA to support granular data sharing (GDS) options that align with patient preferences and data privacy regulations. The need to validate this tool exists. We pilot tested C2S with 199 English and Spanish-speaking patients with behavioral health conditions (BHCs) and patient guardians. Data were analyzed using mixed methodology. All participants desired granular control over the sharing of their health data. Most participants (87%) were highly interested in using a tool that offered granular options for executing data sharing decisions, with over half (55%) indicated that being able to specify the data type, data recipient, and data use purpose made them more willing to share their medical records. Majority (83%) indicated that the supported data type sharing categories satisfied their data-sharing privacy preferences. Majority (87%) also reported that knowing the purpose of data use made them more comfortable in sharing. Some participants (28%) accessed the education materials provided on data type sharing options. Patients want granular choices when sharing medical records. Consent2Share and its supported data type sharing categories are adequate to capture patients’ data sharing preferences. Further development is needed before deployment in clinical environments.

Behavioral Health Professionals' Perceptions on Patient-Controlled Granular Information Sharing (Part 2): Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-directed selection and sharing of health information "granules" is known as granular information sharing. In a previous study, patients with behavioral health conditions categorized their own health information into sensitive categories (eg, mental health) and chose the health professionals (eg, pharmacists) who should have access to those records. Little is known about behavioral health professionals' perspectives of patient-controlled granular information sharing (PC-GIS).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess behavioral health professionals' (1) understanding of and opinions about PC-GIS; (2) accuracy in assessing redacted medical information; (3) reactions to patient rationale for health data categorization, assignment of sensitivity, and sharing choices; and (4) recommendations to improve PC-GIS.

METHODS

Four 2-hour focus groups and pre- and postsurveys were conducted at 2 facilities. During the focus groups, outcomes from a previous study on patients' choices for medical record sharing were discussed. Thematic analysis was applied to focus group transcripts to address study objectives.

RESULTS

A total of 28 health professionals were recruited. Over half (14/25, 56%) were unaware or provided incorrect definitions of granular information sharing. After PC-GIS was explained, all professionals demonstrated understanding of the terminology and process. Most (26/32 codes, 81%) recognized that key medical data had been redacted from the study case. A majority (41/62 codes, 66%) found the patient rationale for categorization and data sharing choices to be unclear. Finally, education and other approaches to inform and engage patients in granular information sharing were recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides detailed insights from behavioral health professionals on granular information sharing. Outcomes will inform the development, deployment, and evaluation of an electronic consent tool for granular health data sharing.

Behavioral Health Professionals' Perceptions on Patient-Controlled Granular Information Sharing (Part 1): Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled granular information sharing (PC-GIS) allows a patient to select specific health information "granules," such as diagnoses and medications; choose with whom the information is shared; and decide how the information can be used. Previous studies suggest that health professionals have mixed or concerned opinions about the process and impact of PC-GIS for care and research. Further understanding of behavioral health professionals' views on PC-GIS are needed for successful implementation and use of this technology.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in health professionals' opinions on PC-GIS before and after a demonstrative case study.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted at two integrated health care facilities: one serious mental illness facility and one general behavioral health facility. A total of 28 participants were given access to outcomes of a previous study where patients had control over medical record sharing. Participants were surveyed before and after focus groups on their views about PC-GIS. Thematic analysis of focus group output was paired with descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis of surveys.

RESULTS

Behavioral health professionals showed a significant opinion shift toward concern after the focus group intervention, specifically on the topics of patient understanding (P=.001), authorized electronic health record access (P=.03), patient-professional relationship (P=.006), patient control acceptance (P<.001), and patient rights (P=.02). Qualitative methodology supported these results. The themes of professional considerations (2234/4025, 55.5% of codes) and necessity of health information (260/766, 33.9%) identified key aspects of PC-GIS concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioral health professionals agreed that a trusting patient-professional relationship is integral to the optimal implementation of PC-GIS, but were concerned about the potential negative impacts of PC-GIS on patient safety and quality of care.