Willingness to Share yet Maintain Influence: A Cross-Sectional Study on Attitudes in Sweden to the Use of Electronic Health Data.

IF 1.4 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Public Health Ethics Pub Date : 2020-11-27 eCollection Date: 2021-04-01 DOI:10.1093/phe/phaa035
Sara Belfrage, Niels Lynöe, Gert Helgesson
{"title":"Willingness to Share yet Maintain Influence: A Cross-Sectional Study on Attitudes in Sweden to the Use of Electronic Health Data.","authors":"Sara Belfrage, Niels Lynöe, Gert Helgesson","doi":"10.1093/phe/phaa035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We have investigated attitudes towards the use of health data among the Swedish population by analyzing data from a survey answered by 1645 persons. Health data are potentially useful for a variety of purposes. Yet information about health remains sensitive. A balance therefore has to be struck between these opposing considerations in a number of contexts. The attitudes among those whose data is concerned will influence the perceived legitimacy of policies regulating health data use. We aimed to investigate what views are held by the general public, and what aspects matter for the willingness to let one's data be used not only for one's own care but also for other purposes. We found that while there is a broad willingness to let one's data be used, the possibility to influence that use is considered important. The study also indicated that when respondents are required to balance different interests, priority is typically given to compulsory schemes ensuring that data are available where needed, rather than voluntary participation and data protection. The policy implications to be drawn from this are not self-evident, however, since the fact that a majority has a certain attitude does not by itself determine the most adequate policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8254641/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phaa035","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We have investigated attitudes towards the use of health data among the Swedish population by analyzing data from a survey answered by 1645 persons. Health data are potentially useful for a variety of purposes. Yet information about health remains sensitive. A balance therefore has to be struck between these opposing considerations in a number of contexts. The attitudes among those whose data is concerned will influence the perceived legitimacy of policies regulating health data use. We aimed to investigate what views are held by the general public, and what aspects matter for the willingness to let one's data be used not only for one's own care but also for other purposes. We found that while there is a broad willingness to let one's data be used, the possibility to influence that use is considered important. The study also indicated that when respondents are required to balance different interests, priority is typically given to compulsory schemes ensuring that data are available where needed, rather than voluntary participation and data protection. The policy implications to be drawn from this are not self-evident, however, since the fact that a majority has a certain attitude does not by itself determine the most adequate policy.

Abstract Image

分享意愿与保持影响力:瑞典对使用电子健康数据态度的横断面研究》。
我们通过分析 1645 人回答的调查数据,调查了瑞典民众对使用健康数据的态度。健康数据可用于多种用途。然而,有关健康的信息仍然很敏感。因此,在许多情况下,必须在这些对立的考虑因素之间取得平衡。数据相关者的态度将影响健康数据使用监管政策的合理性。我们的目的是调查公众持有何种观点,以及哪些方面会影响到他们是否愿意让自己的数据不仅用于自身护理,也用于其他目的。我们发现,虽然受访者普遍愿意让自己的数据被用于其他目的,但影响这种使用的可能性也被认为很重要。研究还表明,当受访者需要平衡不同利益时,通常优先考虑的是确保在需要时提供数据的强制性计划,而不是自愿参与和数据保护。不过,从中得出的政策影响并不明显,因为大多数人持某种态度这一事实本身并不能决定最适当的政策。
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
Public Health Ethics
Public Health Ethics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-MEDICAL ETHICS
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Ethics invites submission of papers on any topic that is relevant for ethical reflection about public health practice and theory. Our aim is to publish readable papers of high scientific quality which will stimulate debate and discussion about ethical issues relating to all aspects of public health. Our main criteria for grading manuscripts include originality and potential impact, quality of philosophical analysis, and relevance to debates in public health ethics and practice. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the understanding that they have been submitted solely to Public Health Ethics and that they have not been previously published either in whole or in part. Authors may not submit papers that are under consideration for publication elsewhere, and, if an author decides to offer a submitted paper to another journal, the paper must be withdrawn from Public Health Ethics before the new submission is made. The editorial office will make every effort to deal with submissions to the journal as quickly as possible. All papers will be acknowledged on receipt by email and will receive preliminary editorial review within 2 weeks. Papers of high interest will be sent out for external review. Authors will normally be notified of acceptance, rejection, or need for revision within 8 weeks of submission. Contributors will be provided with electronic access to their proof via email; corrections should be returned within 48 hours.
×
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