Heuristics Identified in Health Data–Sharing Preferences of Patients With Cancer: Qualitative Focus Group Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evaluating precision oncology outcomes requires access to real-world and clinical trial data. Access is based on consent, and consent is based on patients’ informed preferences when deciding to share their data. Decision-making is often modeled using utility theory, but a complex decision context calls for a consideration of how heuristic, intuitive thought processes interact with rational utility maximization. Data-sharing decision-making has been studied using heuristic theory, but almost no heuristic research exists in the health data context. This study explores this evidence gap, applying a qualitative approach to probe for evidence of heuristic mechanisms behind the health data-sharing preferences of those who have experienced cancer. Exploring qualitative decision-making reveals the types of heuristics used and how they are related to the process of decision-making to better understand whether consent mechanisms should consider nonrational processes to better serve patient decision-making. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to explore how patients with cancer use heuristics when deciding whether to share their data for research. METHODS The researchers conducted a focus group study of Canadians who have experienced cancer. We recruited participants through an online advertisement, screening individuals based on their ability to increase demographic diversity in the sample. We reviewed the literature on data-sharing platforms to develop a semistructured topic guide on concerns about data sharing, incentives to share, and consent and control. Focus group facilitators led the open-ended discussions about data-sharing preferences that revealed underlying heuristics. Two qualitative analysts coded transcripts using a heuristic framework developed from a review of the literature. Transcripts were analyzed for heuristic instances which were grouped according to sociocultural categories. Using thematic analysis, the analysts generated reflexive themes through norming sessions and consultations. RESULTS A total of 3 focus groups were held with 19 participants in total. The analysis identified 12 heuristics underlying intentions to share data. From the thematic analysis, we identified how the heuristics of social norms and community building were expressed through altruism; the recognition, reputation, and authority heuristics led to (dis)trust in certain institutions; the need for security prompted the illusion of control and transparency heuristics; and the availability and affect heuristics influenced attitudes around risk and benefit. These thematic relationships all had impacts on the participants’ intentions to share their health data. CONCLUSIONS The findings provide a novel qualitative understanding of how health data–sharing decisions and preferences may be based on heuristic processing. As patients consider the extent of risks and benefits, heuristic processes influence their assessment of anticipated outcomes, which may not result in rational, truly informed consent. This study shows how considering heuristic processing when designing current consent mechanisms opens up the opportunity for more meaningful and realistic interactions with the complex decision-making context.
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 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 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".