MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362600491 · doi:10.1101/2023.04.03.23288075

Psychological ownership influences perceived legal ownership of patient medical data

2023· preprint· en· W4362600491 on OpenAlexaff
Romain Cadario, Carmel Shachar, I. Glenn Cohen, Carey K. Morewedge

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderBusinessSurvey data collectionPatients' rightsFor profitProfit (economics)Public relationsHealth careFamily medicinePolitical scienceMedicineLawFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose beliefs about legal ownership are informed and biased by intuitions about and cues that imbue psychological ownership—knowledge, control, and self-investment. We test our theory in the context of legal ownership of medical data in the United States, which is determined by property rights afforded by HIPAA to three stakeholders: patients, medical providers, and health systems. We theorize that stakeholders underestimate patient rights and overestimate provider rights afforded by HIPAA because patients are perceived to have less knowledge, control, and to have invested less in their data. As predicted, all stakeholders underestimated patient rights and overestimated provider rights afforded by HIPAA in a nationally representative sample of patients ( N =300) and convenience samples of medical providers ( N =114) and health systems administrators ( N =100). All stakeholders agreed that patients should also be afforded more rights by HIPAA and fewer rights should be afforded to health systems. We find additional evidentiary support for our process account in three experiments ( N =1195) in which we manipulated the perceived knowledge, control, and self-investment of patients, which modulated the degree to which patients underestimated rights afforded to them by HIPAA. Our findings illustrate how intuitions about psychological ownership inform and bias judgments of legal ownership, and reveal a consensus of stakeholders agree HIPAA should be reformed to expand patient rights. Public significance This study suggests that beliefs about legal ownership are informed and biased by intuitions about and cues that imbue psychological ownership—knowledge, control, and self-investment. It shows how patients, medical providers and health systems administrators underestimate patient rights and overestimate provider rights afforded by HIPAA, and reveals additional patient rights that all stakeholders agree should be afforded by HIPAA.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.265
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.139 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207