Factors Associated With Willingness to Share Health Information: Rapid Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To expand research and strategies to prevent disease, comprehensive and real-time data are essential. Health data are increasingly available from platforms such as pharmaceuticals, genomics, health care imaging, medical procedures, wearable devices, and internet activity. Further, health data are integrated with an individual's sociodemographic information, medical conditions, genetics, treatments, and health care. Ultimately, health information generation and flow are controlled by the patient or participant; however, there is a lack of understanding about the factors that influence willingness to share health information. A synthesis of the current literature on the multifactorial nature of health information sharing preferences is required to understand health information exchange. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this review are to identify peer-reviewed literature that reported factors associated with health information sharing and to organize factors into cohesive themes and present a narrative synthesis of factors related to willingness to share health information. METHODS: This review uses a rapid review methodology to gather literature regarding willingness to share health information within the context of eHealth, which includes electronic health records, personal health records, mobile health information, general health information, or information on social determinants of health. MEDLINE and Google Scholar were searched using keywords such as electronic health records AND data sharing OR sharing preference OR willingness to share. The search was limited to any population that excluded health care workers or practitioners, and the participants aged ≥18 years within the US or Canadian context. The data abstraction process using thematic analysis where any factors associated with sharing health information were highlighted and coded inductively within each article. On the basis of shared meaning, the coded factors were collated into major themes. RESULTS: A total of 26 research articles met our inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis. The inductive thematic coding process revealed multiple major themes related to sharing health information. CONCLUSIONS: This review emphasized the importance of data generators' viewpoints and the complex systems of factors that shape their decision to share health information. The themes explored in this study emphasize the importance of trust at multiple levels to develop effective information exchange partnerships. In the case of improving precision health care, addressing the factors presented here that influence willingness to share information can improve sharing capacity for individuals and allow researchers to reorient their methods to address hesitation in sharing health information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".