Community Comfort With Automatic Sharing of Race, Ethnicity, and Language Data Between Health Care Settings: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Little is known regarding patient attitudes toward automatic sharing of race, ethnicity, and language (REL) data in health care settings despite the universal practice of data sharing across health care institutions and providers. Objective: This study aims to assess public comfort with disclosing and automatically sharing REL data in health care settings and understand the social factors associated with these attitudes. Methods: Using the 2022 DataHaven Community Wellbeing Survey from 1196 adult Connecticut residents, we examined factors associated with public comfort with disclosing and automatically sharing REL data across health care settings. We generated unadjusted and adjusted logistic models to examine associations between factors and responses to the data-sharing questions. Results: Most residents surveyed were White (n=873, 73%), followed by African American or Black (n=167, 14%), Asian or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (n=31, 2.6%), multiracial (n=31, 2.6%), and American Indian or Alaska Native (n=12, 1%). The majority of respondents were not Hispanic or Latino (n=1051, 87.9%). More than half of respondents reported excellent or very good self-rated health (SRH; n=635, 53.1%), and most participants reported almost always trusting their health care provider (n=939, 78.5%). Most participants reported being willing to share race and ethnicity data at a hospital or clinic (n=1008, 84.3%) and REL data automatically (n=947, 79.2%) in health care settings. Hispanic or Latino (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.049, 95% CI 0.25-0.94) and multiracial (AOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14-0.76) respondents were less likely to be willing to disclose race and ethnicity data compared to those who were not Hispanic or Latino and who were White, respectively. Individuals who sometimes trust health care providers (AOR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.94) or rarely/never (AOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15-0.85) were less likely to be willing to disclose race and ethnicity data than those who almost always trust health care providers. African American or Black (AOR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.72) and American Indian or Alaska Native (AOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.75) individuals were less likely to be willing to share REL data automatically than White individuals. Those who sometimes trust health care providers (AOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.74) or rarely/never trust health care providers (AOR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11-0.56) were less likely to be willing to share REL data automatically than those who almost always trust health care providers. Those with poor/fair SRH versus very good/excellent SRH were less likely to be willing to share REL data automatically (AOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.85). Conclusions: Racial and ethnic identity, SRH, and trust in health care providers affect willingness to share REL information with providers and other health systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".