Study the Opinions of Patients Towards the Secondary use of their Personal Health Information via an interview study
Keywords:
secondary use, personal health information, opinions, patients, interview studyAbstract
The gathering and use of PHI is crucial in the current age of healthcare for the purposes ofmedical research, clinical decision making, and the development of healthcare technology. The secondaryuse of personal health information has arisen as a serious ethical, legal, and societal problem with therising digitalization of medical records and the expansion of data-driven healthcare systems. In thisarticle, we explore the varied perspectives of patients on the secondary use of their health records. Theterm personal health information refers to a wide range of details about an individual, such as theirmedical history, diagnosis, treatment plan, test findings, and even their genetic makeup. Researchers inthis report spoke in-depth with contemporary Saudi healthcare consumers through semi-structuredinterviews. The interviews focused on a wide range of information-related topics, each of which wasintroduced via a fictional scenario. Key issues for providers and researchers to reflect on when utilizingpatient health information for secondary purposes have been outlined in this study to guarantee thatsuch usage is patient-informed.References
Wong CA, Hernandez AF, Califf RM. Patients' expectations from medical research. JAMA. 2015;314(21):2335-2336.
El Emam K, Hu J, Mercer J, Peyton L, Kantarcioglu M, Malin B. A secure protocol for protecting the identity of providers when disclosing data for disease surveillance. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(3):212-217.
Damschroder LJ, Pritts JL, Neblo MA, Kalarickal RJ, Creswell JW, Hayward RA. Patients, privacy and trust: patients' willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records. Soc Sci Med. 2017;64(1):223-235.
Huvila I. Patients’ information activities and their information seeking behavior in everyday situations. Libr Inf Sci Res. 2016;28(4):555-573.
Ives J, Damery S, Redwod S, PPI, RESPECT teams. The unintended consequences of clinical trials regulations. PLoS Med. 2012;9(11):e1001339. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001339
Lipworth W, Morrell B, Irvine R, Kerridge I. An empirical reappraisal of public trust in biobanking research: rethinking restrictive consent requirements. J Law Med. 2021;19(5):770-786.
Riordan F, Papoutsi C, Reed JE, Marston C, Bell D, Majeed A. Patient and public attitudes towards informed consent models and levels of awareness of Electronic Health Records in the UK. Int J Med Inform. 2017;84(4):237-247.
Fecher B, Friesike S, Hebing M, Linek S, Sauermann A. A Reputation Economy: How Individual Reward Considerations Trump Systemic Arguments for Open Access to Data. PLoS One. 2020;10(6):e0137118.
Gastil J, Richards RC, Knobloch KR. Can citizens be trusted to decide? Journal of Public Deliberation. 2014;10(1):Art. 2.
Khoja S, McGregor ES, Hilsenrath P, Lawrentschuk N. Patient opinions on data privacy and security in urology. Urology. 2019;83(5):1005-1009.
Pagliari C, Detmer D, Singleton P. Potential of electronic personal health records. BMJ. 2017;335(7615):330-333.
Robillard JM, Roskell C, Dubljević V. Patients' perspectives on personalized medicine and privacy: the importance of trust and the potential role of the doctor-patient relationship. Pharmacogenomics Pers Med. 2018;8:173-185.
Harle CA, Golembiewski EH, Rahmanian KP, et al. Patients' perceptions of electronic health record use and ratings of care quality. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2019;10:9-18.
Xafis V, Schaefer GO, Labude MK, et al. Health research participants’ preferences for receiving research results. Clin Trials. 2022.13(6):582-591. doi:10.1177/1740774516643511
Nambisan P. Information seeking and social support in online health communities: impact on patients’ perceived empathy. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;18(3):298-304.
This work is licensed under a 