Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data

Background: Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) is a well-established technique to elicit individual preferences, but it has rarely been used to elicit governance preferences for health data sharing. Objectives: The aim of this article was to describe the process of identifying attributes for a DCE stu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Technology in Society
Main Authors: Jennifer Viberg Johansson, Nisha Shah, Eik Haraldsdóttir, Heidi Beate Bentzen, Sarah Coy, Jane Kaye, Deborah Mascalzoni, J (Jorien) Veldwijk
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Published: 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:https://repub.eur.nl/pub/136425
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101625
id ftunivrotterdam:oai:repub.eur.nl:136425
record_format openpolar
spelling ftunivrotterdam:oai:repub.eur.nl:136425 2024-06-02T08:09:24+00:00 Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data Jennifer Viberg Johansson Nisha Shah Eik Haraldsdóttir Heidi Beate Bentzen Sarah Coy Jane Kaye Deborah Mascalzoni J (Jorien) Veldwijk 2021-08-01 https://repub.eur.nl/pub/136425 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101625 unknown https://repub.eur.nl/pub/136425 doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101625 urn:hdl:1765/136425 Technology in Society vol. 66 info:eu-repo/semantics/article 2021 ftunivrotterdam https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101625 2024-05-06T17:04:38Z Background: Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) is a well-established technique to elicit individual preferences, but it has rarely been used to elicit governance preferences for health data sharing. Objectives: The aim of this article was to describe the process of identifying attributes for a DCE study aiming to elicit preferences of citizens in Sweden, Iceland and the UK for governance mechanisms for digitally sharing different kinds of health data in different contexts. Methods: A three-step approach was utilised to inform the attribute and level selection: 1) Attribute identification, 2) Attribute development and 3) Attribute refinement. First, we developed an initial set of potential attributes from a literature review and a workshop with experts. To further develop attributes, focus group discussions with citizens (n = 13), ranking exercises among focus group participants (n = 48) and expert interviews (n = 18) were performed. Thereafter, attributes were refined using group discussion (n = 3) with experts as well as cognitive interviews with citizens (n = 11). Results: The results led to the selection of seven attributes for further development: 1) level of identification, 2) the purpose of data use, 3) type of information, 4) consent, 5) new data user, 6) collector and 7) the oversight of data sharing. Differences were found between countries regarding the order of top three attributes. The process outlined participants’ conceptualisation of the chosen attributes, and what we learned for our attribute development phase. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a process for selection of attributes for a (multi-country) DCE involving three stages: Attribute identification, Attribute development and Attribute refinement. This study can contribute to improve the ethical aspects and good practice of this phase in DCE studies. Specifically, it can contribute to the development of governance mechanisms in the digital world, where people's health data are shared for multiple purposes. Article in Journal/Newspaper Iceland RePub - Publications from Erasmus University, Rotterdam Technology in Society 66 101625
institution Open Polar
collection RePub - Publications from Erasmus University, Rotterdam
op_collection_id ftunivrotterdam
language unknown
description Background: Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) is a well-established technique to elicit individual preferences, but it has rarely been used to elicit governance preferences for health data sharing. Objectives: The aim of this article was to describe the process of identifying attributes for a DCE study aiming to elicit preferences of citizens in Sweden, Iceland and the UK for governance mechanisms for digitally sharing different kinds of health data in different contexts. Methods: A three-step approach was utilised to inform the attribute and level selection: 1) Attribute identification, 2) Attribute development and 3) Attribute refinement. First, we developed an initial set of potential attributes from a literature review and a workshop with experts. To further develop attributes, focus group discussions with citizens (n = 13), ranking exercises among focus group participants (n = 48) and expert interviews (n = 18) were performed. Thereafter, attributes were refined using group discussion (n = 3) with experts as well as cognitive interviews with citizens (n = 11). Results: The results led to the selection of seven attributes for further development: 1) level of identification, 2) the purpose of data use, 3) type of information, 4) consent, 5) new data user, 6) collector and 7) the oversight of data sharing. Differences were found between countries regarding the order of top three attributes. The process outlined participants’ conceptualisation of the chosen attributes, and what we learned for our attribute development phase. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a process for selection of attributes for a (multi-country) DCE involving three stages: Attribute identification, Attribute development and Attribute refinement. This study can contribute to improve the ethical aspects and good practice of this phase in DCE studies. Specifically, it can contribute to the development of governance mechanisms in the digital world, where people's health data are shared for multiple purposes.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Jennifer Viberg Johansson
Nisha Shah
Eik Haraldsdóttir
Heidi Beate Bentzen
Sarah Coy
Jane Kaye
Deborah Mascalzoni
J (Jorien) Veldwijk
spellingShingle Jennifer Viberg Johansson
Nisha Shah
Eik Haraldsdóttir
Heidi Beate Bentzen
Sarah Coy
Jane Kaye
Deborah Mascalzoni
J (Jorien) Veldwijk
Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data
author_facet Jennifer Viberg Johansson
Nisha Shah
Eik Haraldsdóttir
Heidi Beate Bentzen
Sarah Coy
Jane Kaye
Deborah Mascalzoni
J (Jorien) Veldwijk
author_sort Jennifer Viberg Johansson
title Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data
title_short Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data
title_full Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data
title_fullStr Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data
title_full_unstemmed Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data
title_sort governance mechanisms for sharing of health data
publishDate 2021
url https://repub.eur.nl/pub/136425
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101625
genre Iceland
genre_facet Iceland
op_source Technology in Society vol. 66
op_relation https://repub.eur.nl/pub/136425
doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101625
urn:hdl:1765/136425
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101625
container_title Technology in Society
container_volume 66
container_start_page 101625
_version_ 1800755114552590336