Researchers' perceptions of the trustworthiness, for reuse purposes, of government health data in Victoria, Australia: Implications for policy and practice.

Merilyn Riley, Monique F Kilkenny, Kerin Robinson, Sandra G Leggat
{"title":"Researchers' perceptions of the trustworthiness, for reuse purposes, of government health data in Victoria, Australia: Implications for policy and practice.","authors":"Merilyn Riley, Monique F Kilkenny, Kerin Robinson, Sandra G Leggat","doi":"10.1177/18333583241256049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2022 the Australian Data Availability and Transparency Act (DATA) commenced, enabling accredited \"data users\" to access data from \"accredited data service providers.\" However, the DATA Scheme lacks guidance on \"trustworthiness\" of the data to be utilised for reuse purposes. <b>Objectives</b>: To determine: (i) Do researchers using government health datasets trust the data? (ii) What factors influence their perceptions of data trustworthiness? and (iii) What are the implications for government and data custodians? <b>Method:</b> Authors of published studies (2008-2020) that utilised Victorian government health datasets were surveyed via a case study approach. Twenty-eight trust constructs (identified via literature review) were grouped into data factors, management properties and provider factors. <b>Results:</b> Fifty experienced health researchers responded. Most (88%) believed that Victorian government health data were trustworthy. When <i>grouped</i>, data factors and management properties were more important than data provider factors in building trust. The most important <i>individual</i> trust constructs were: \"compliant with ethical regulation\" (100%) and \"monitoring privacy and confidentiality\" (98%). Constructs of least importance were knowledge of \"participant consent\" (56%) and \"major focus of the data provider was research\" (50%). <b>Conclusion:</b> Overall, the researchers trusted government health data, but data factors and data management properties were more important than data provider factors in building trust. <b>Implications</b>: Government should ensure the DATA Scheme incorporates mechanisms to validate those data utilised by accredited data users and data providers have sufficient quality (intrinsic and extrinsic) to meet the requirements of \"trustworthiness,\" and that evidentiary documentation is provided to support these \"accredited data.\"</p>","PeriodicalId":73210,"journal":{"name":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","volume":" ","pages":"18333583241256049"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583241256049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2022 the Australian Data Availability and Transparency Act (DATA) commenced, enabling accredited "data users" to access data from "accredited data service providers." However, the DATA Scheme lacks guidance on "trustworthiness" of the data to be utilised for reuse purposes. Objectives: To determine: (i) Do researchers using government health datasets trust the data? (ii) What factors influence their perceptions of data trustworthiness? and (iii) What are the implications for government and data custodians? Method: Authors of published studies (2008-2020) that utilised Victorian government health datasets were surveyed via a case study approach. Twenty-eight trust constructs (identified via literature review) were grouped into data factors, management properties and provider factors. Results: Fifty experienced health researchers responded. Most (88%) believed that Victorian government health data were trustworthy. When grouped, data factors and management properties were more important than data provider factors in building trust. The most important individual trust constructs were: "compliant with ethical regulation" (100%) and "monitoring privacy and confidentiality" (98%). Constructs of least importance were knowledge of "participant consent" (56%) and "major focus of the data provider was research" (50%). Conclusion: Overall, the researchers trusted government health data, but data factors and data management properties were more important than data provider factors in building trust. Implications: Government should ensure the DATA Scheme incorporates mechanisms to validate those data utilised by accredited data users and data providers have sufficient quality (intrinsic and extrinsic) to meet the requirements of "trustworthiness," and that evidentiary documentation is provided to support these "accredited data."

澳大利亚维多利亚州研究人员对政府卫生数据再利用可信度的看法:对政策和实践的影响。
2022 年,《澳大利亚数据可用性和透明度法案》(DATA)开始实施,使经认可的 "数据用户 "能够从 "经认可的数据服务提供商 "处获取数据。然而,DATA 计划缺乏对用于再利用目的的数据的 "可信度 "的指导。目标:确定:(i) 使用政府卫生数据集的研究人员是否信任这些数据?(ii) 哪些因素会影响他们对数据可信度的看法? (iii) 对政府和数据保管人有何影响?研究方法:通过案例研究的方法,对使用维多利亚州政府卫生数据集的已发表研究(2008-2020 年)的作者进行了调查。28 个信任结构(通过文献综述确定)被归类为数据因素、管理属性和提供者因素。结果:50 名经验丰富的卫生研究人员做出了回应。大多数人(88%)认为维多利亚州政府的健康数据值得信赖。在建立信任方面,数据因素和管理属性比数据提供者因素更重要。最重要的个人信任因素是"符合道德规范"(100%)和 "监控隐私和保密性"(98%)。最不重要的因素是对 "参与者同意"(56%)和 "数据提供者的主要重点是研究"(50%)的了解。结论总体而言,研究人员信任政府健康数据,但在建立信任方面,数据因素和数据管理属性比数据提供者因素更重要。影响:政府应确保 DATA 计划纳入相关机制,以验证经认可的数据用户和数据提供者所使用的数据具有足够的质量(内在和外在),以满足 "可信度 "的要求,并提供证据文件来支持这些 "经认可的数据"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信