The Role of Health Care Experience and Consumer Information Efficacy in Shaping Privacy and Security Perceptions of Medical Records: National Consumer Survey Results
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Providers' adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) is increasing and consumers have expressed concerns about the potential effects of EHRs on privacy and security. Yet, we lack a comprehensive understanding regarding factors that affect individuals' perceptions regarding the privacy and security of their medical information. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe national perceptions regarding the privacy and security of medical records and identify a comprehensive set of factors associated with these perceptions. METHODS: Using a nationally representative 2011-2012 survey, we reported on adults' perceptions regarding privacy and security of medical records and sharing of health information between providers, and whether adults withheld information from a health care provider due to privacy or security concerns. We used multivariable models to examine the association between these outcomes and sociodemographic characteristics, health and health care experience, information efficacy, and technology-related variables. RESULTS: Approximately one-quarter of American adults (weighted n=235,217,323; unweighted n=3959) indicated they were very confident (n=989) and approximately half indicated they were somewhat confident (n=1597) in the privacy of their medical records; we found similar results regarding adults' confidence in the security of medical records (very confident: n=828; somewhat confident: n=1742). In all, 12.33% (520/3904) withheld information from a health care provider and 59.06% (2100/3459) expressed concerns about the security of both faxed and electronic health information. Adjusting for other characteristics, adults who reported higher quality of care had significantly greater confidence in the privacy and security of their medical records and were less likely to withhold information from their health care provider due to privacy or security concerns. Adults with higher information efficacy had significantly greater confidence in the privacy and security of medical records and less concern about sharing of health information by both fax and electronic means. Individuals' perceptions of whether their providers use an EHR was not associated with any privacy or security outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although most adults are confident in the privacy and security of their medical records, many express concerns regarding sharing of information between providers; a minority report withholding information from their providers due to privacy and security concerns. Whether individuals thought their provider was using an EHR was not associated with negative privacy/security perceptions or withholding, suggesting the transition to EHRs is not associated with negative perceptions regarding the privacy and security of medical information. However, monitoring to see how this evolves will be important. Given that positive health care experiences and higher information efficacy were associated with more favorable perceptions of privacy and security, efforts should continue to encourage providers to secure medical records, provide patients with a "meaningful choice" in how their data are shared, and enable individuals to access information they need to manage their care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».