The Association of Psychological Factors With Willingness to Share Health-Related Data From Technological Devices: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health-related data from technological devices are increasingly obtained through smartphone apps and wearable devices. These data could enable physicians and other care providers to monitor patients outside the clinic or assist individuals in improving lifestyle factors. However, the use of health technology data might be hampered by the reluctance of patients to share personal health technology data because of the privacy sensitivity of this information. Objective: This study investigates to what extent psychological factors play a role in people's willingness to share personal health technology data. Methods: Data for this cross-sectional study were obtained by quota sampling based on age and sex in a community-based sample (N=1013; mean age 48.6, SD 16.6 years; 522/1013, 51.5% women). Willingness to share personal health technology data and related privacy concerns were assessed using an 8-item questionnaire with good psychometric properties (Cronbach's α=0.82). Psychological variables were assessed using validated questionnaires for optimism (Life Orientation Test-Revised), psychological flexibility (Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire), negative affectivity (Type D Scale-14-Negative Affectivity), social inhibition (Type D Scale-14-Social Inhibition), generalized anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9). Data were analyzed using multiple linear regression analyses, and network analysis was used to visualize the associations between the item scores. Results: Higher levels of optimism (β=.093; P=.004) and psychological flexibility (β=.127; P<.001) and lower levels of social inhibition (β=-.096; P=.002) were significantly associated with higher levels of willingness to share health technology data when adjusting for age, sex, and education level in separate regression models. Other associations with psychological variables were not statistically significant. Network analysis revealed that psychological flexibility clustered more with items that focused on the benefits of sharing data, while optimism was negatively associated with privacy concerns. Conclusions: The current results suggest that people with higher levels of optimism and psychological flexibility and those with lower social inhibition levels are more likely to share health technology data. The magnitude of the effect sizes was low, and future studies with additional psychological measures are needed to establish which factors identify people who are reluctant to share their data such that optimal use of devices in health care can be facilitated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, 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".