Stakeholders' perceptions of personal health data sharing: A scoping review.

PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2024-11-20 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000652
Prima Alam, Ana Bolio, Leesa Lin, Heidi J Larson
{"title":"Stakeholders' perceptions of personal health data sharing: A scoping review.","authors":"Prima Alam, Ana Bolio, Leesa Lin, Heidi J Larson","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The rapid advancement of digital health technologies has heightened demand for health data for secondary uses, highlighting the importance of understanding global perspectives on personal information sharing. This article examines stakeholder perceptions and attitudes toward the use of personal health data to improve personalized treatments, interventions, and research. It also identifies barriers and facilitators in health data sharing and pinpoints gaps in current research, aiming to inform ethical practices in healthcare settings that utilize digital technologies. We conducted a scoping review of peer reviewed empirical studies based on data pertaining to perceptions and attitudes towards sharing personal health data. The authors searched three electronic databases-Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science-for articles published (2015-2023), using terms relating to health data and perceptions. Thirty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria with sample size ranging from 14 to 29,275. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines for the design and analysis of this study. We synthesized the included articles using narrative analysis. The review captured multiple stakeholder perspectives with an up-to-date range of diverse barriers and facilitators that impact data-sharing behavior. The included studies were primarily cross-sectional and geographically concentrated in high-income settings; often overlooking diverse demographics and broader global health challenges. Most of the included studies were based within North America and Western Europe, with the United States (n = 8) and the United Kingdom (n = 7) representing the most studied countries. Many reviewed studies were published in 2022 (n = 11) and used quantitative methods (n = 23). Twenty-nine studies examined the perspectives of patients and the public while six looked at healthcare professionals, researchers, and experts. Many of the studies we reviewed reported overall positive attitudes about data sharing with variations around sociodemographic factors, motivations for sharing data, type and recipient of data being shared, consent preference, and trust.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"3 11","pages":"e0000652"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11578505/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000652","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rapid advancement of digital health technologies has heightened demand for health data for secondary uses, highlighting the importance of understanding global perspectives on personal information sharing. This article examines stakeholder perceptions and attitudes toward the use of personal health data to improve personalized treatments, interventions, and research. It also identifies barriers and facilitators in health data sharing and pinpoints gaps in current research, aiming to inform ethical practices in healthcare settings that utilize digital technologies. We conducted a scoping review of peer reviewed empirical studies based on data pertaining to perceptions and attitudes towards sharing personal health data. The authors searched three electronic databases-Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science-for articles published (2015-2023), using terms relating to health data and perceptions. Thirty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria with sample size ranging from 14 to 29,275. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines for the design and analysis of this study. We synthesized the included articles using narrative analysis. The review captured multiple stakeholder perspectives with an up-to-date range of diverse barriers and facilitators that impact data-sharing behavior. The included studies were primarily cross-sectional and geographically concentrated in high-income settings; often overlooking diverse demographics and broader global health challenges. Most of the included studies were based within North America and Western Europe, with the United States (n = 8) and the United Kingdom (n = 7) representing the most studied countries. Many reviewed studies were published in 2022 (n = 11) and used quantitative methods (n = 23). Twenty-nine studies examined the perspectives of patients and the public while six looked at healthcare professionals, researchers, and experts. Many of the studies we reviewed reported overall positive attitudes about data sharing with variations around sociodemographic factors, motivations for sharing data, type and recipient of data being shared, consent preference, and trust.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利益相关者对个人健康数据共享的看法:范围审查。
数字健康技术的飞速发展提高了对健康数据二次利用的需求,凸显了了解全球对个人信息共享看法的重要性。本文探讨了利益相关者对使用个人健康数据改善个性化治疗、干预和研究的看法和态度。文章还指出了健康数据共享的障碍和促进因素,并指出了当前研究中存在的差距,旨在为利用数字技术的医疗保健环境中的伦理实践提供参考。我们根据与共享个人健康数据的看法和态度相关的数据,对经同行评审的实证研究进行了范围界定。作者在三个电子数据库--Embase、MEDLINE 和 Web of Science--中使用与健康数据和认知相关的术语检索了发表于 2015-2023 年的文章。39篇文章符合纳入标准,样本量从14到29,275不等。在设计和分析本研究时,我们遵循了《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)的扩展范围综述指南。我们采用叙事分析法对纳入的文章进行了综合。综述从多个利益相关者的角度出发,对影响数据共享行为的各种障碍和促进因素进行了最新的分析。所纳入的研究主要是横断面研究,地域集中在高收入地区,往往忽略了不同的人口结构和更广泛的全球健康挑战。大部分纳入研究的国家位于北美和西欧,其中美国(8 项)和英国(7 项)是研究最多的国家。许多综述研究发表于 2022 年(11 项),并使用了定量方法(23 项)。29 项研究考察了患者和公众的观点,6 项研究考察了医护人员、研究人员和专家的观点。我们审查的许多研究都报告了人们对数据共享的总体积极态度,但在社会人口因素、共享数据的动机、共享数据的类型和接收方、同意偏好和信任度等方面存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Opportunities to design better computer vison-assisted food diaries to support individuals and experts in dietary assessment: An observation and interview study with nutrition experts. Deep learning-based screening for locomotive syndrome using single-camera walking video: Development and validation study. A recurrent neural network and parallel hidden Markov model algorithm to segment and detect heart murmurs in phonocardiograms. On-site electronic consent in pediatrics using generic Informed Consent Service (gICS): Creating a specialized setup and collecting consent data. A feature-based qualitative assessment of smoking cessation mobile applications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1