The Impact of Data Control and Delayed Discounting on the Public’s Willingness to Share Different Types of Health Care Data: Empirical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health data typically include patient-generated data and clinical medical data. Different types of data contribute to disease prevention, precision medicine, and the overall improvement of health care. With the introduction of regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), individuals play a key role in the sharing and application of personal health data. Objective: This study aims to explore the impact of different types of health data on users' willingness to share. Additionally, it analyzes the effect of data control and delay discounting rate on this process. Methods: The results of a web-based survey were analyzed to examine individuals' perceptions of sharing different types of health data and how data control and delay discounting rates influenced their decisions. We recruited participants for our study through the web-based platform "Wenjuanxing." After screening, we obtained 257 valid responses. Regression analysis was used to investigate the impact of data control, delayed discounting, and mental accounting on the public's willingness to share different types of health care data. Results: Our findings indicate that the type of health data does not significantly affect the perceived benefits of data sharing. Instead, it negatively influences willingness to share by indirectly affecting data acquisition costs and perceived risks. Our results also show that data control reduces the perceived risks associated with sharing, while higher delay discounting rates lead to an overestimation of data acquisition costs and perceived risks. Conclusions: Individuals' willingness to share data is primarily influenced by costs. To promote the acquisition and development of personal health data, stakeholders should strengthen individuals' control over their data or provide direct short-term incentives.
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 | 0.014 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".