Health data sharing attitudes towards primary and secondary use of data: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To receive the best care, people share their health data (HD) with their health practitioners (known as sharing HD for primary purposes). However, during the past two decades, sharing for other (i.e., secondary) purposes has become of great importance in numerous fields, including public health, personalized medicine, research, and development. We aimed to conduct the first comprehensive overview of all studies that investigated people's HD sharing attitudes-along with associated barriers/motivators and significant influencing factors-for all data types and across both primary and secondary uses. Methods: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CINAHL for relevant studies published in English between database inception and February 28, 2023, using a predefined set of keywords. Studies were included, regardless of their design, if they reported outcomes related to attitudes towards sharing HD. We extracted key data from the included studies, including the type of HD involved and findings related to: HD sharing attitudes (either in general or depending on type of data/user); barriers/motivators/benefits/concerns of the study participants; and sociodemographic and other variables that could impact HD sharing behaviour. The qualitative synthesis was conducted by dividing the studies according to the data type (resulting in five subgroups) as well as the purpose the data sharing was focused on (primary, secondary or both). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of non-randomised studies. This work was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023413822. Findings: Of 2109 studies identified through our search, 116 were included in the qualitative synthesis, yielding a total of 228,501 participants and various types of HD represented: person-generated HD (n = 17 studies and 10,771 participants), personal HD in general (n = 69 studies and 117,054 participants), Biobank data (n = 7 studies and 27,073 participants), genomic data (n = 13 studies and 54,716 participants), and miscellaneous data (n = 10 studies and 18,887 participants). The majority of studies had a moderate level of quality (83 [71.6%] of 116 studies), but varying levels of quality were observed across the included studies. Overall, studies suggest that sharing intentions for primary purposes were observed to be high regardless of data type, and it was higher than sharing intentions for secondary purposes. Sharing for secondary purposes yielded variable findings, where both the highest and the lowest intention rates were observed in the case of studies that explored sharing biobank data (98% and 10%, respectively). Several influencing factors on sharing intentions were identified, such as the type of data recipient, data, consent. Further, concerns related to data sharing that were found to be mutual for all data types included privacy, security, and data access/control, while the perceived benefits included those related to improvements in healthcare. Findings regarding attitudes towards sharing varied significantly across sociodemographic factors and depended on data type and type of use. In most cases, these findings were derived from single studies and therefore warrant confirmations from additional studies. Interpretation: Sharing health data is a complex issue that is influenced by various factors (the type of health data, the intended use, the data recipient, among others) and these insights could be used to overcome barriers, address people's concerns, and focus on spreading awareness about the data sharing process and benefits. Funding: None.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Open science Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".