IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0290528.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public preference on sharing health data to inform research, health policy and clinical practice in Australia: A stated preference experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Richard J Varhol
  • Richard Norman
  • Sean Randall
  • Crystal Man Ying Lee
  • Luke Trevenen
  • James H Boyd
  • Suzanne Robinson

Abstract

Objective: To investigate public willingness to share sensitive health information for research, health policy and clinical practice. Methods: A total of 1,003 Australian respondents answered an online, attribute-driven, survey in which participants were asked to accept or reject hypothetical choice sets based on a willingness to share their health data for research and frontline-medical support as part of an integrated health system. The survey consisted of 5 attributes: Stakeholder access for analysis (Analysing group); Type of information collected; Purpose of data collection; Information governance; and Anticipated benefit; the results of which were analysed using logistic regression. Results: When asked about their preference for sharing their health data, respondents had no preference between data collection for the purposes of clinical practice, health policy or research, with a slight preference for having government organisations manage, govern and curate the integrated datasets from which the analysis was being conducted. The least preferred option was for personal health records to be integrated with insurance records or for their data collected by privately owned corporate organisations. Individuals preferred their data to be analysed by a public healthcare provider or government staff and expressed a dislike for any private company involvement. Conclusions: The findings from this study suggest that Australian consumers prefer to share their health data when there is government oversight, and have concerns about sharing their anonymised health data for clinical practice, health policy or research purposes unless clarity is provided pertaining to its intended purpose, limitations of use and restrictions to access. Similar findings have been observed in the limited set of existing international studies utilising a stated preference approach. Evident from this study, and supported by national and international research, is that the establishment and preservation of a social license for data linkage in health research will require routine public engagement as a result of continuously evolving technological advancements and fluctuating risk tolerance. Without more work to understand and address stakeholder concerns, consumers risk being reluctant to participate in data-sharing and linkage programmes.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard J Varhol & Richard Norman & Sean Randall & Crystal Man Ying Lee & Luke Trevenen & James H Boyd & Suzanne Robinson, 2023. "Public preference on sharing health data to inform research, health policy and clinical practice in Australia: A stated preference experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-19, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0290528
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290528
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290528&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0290528?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0290528. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.