skip to main content
10.1145/2441776.2441838acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Non-static nature of patient consent: shifting privacy perspectives in health information sharing

Published:23 February 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study is to explore how chronically ill patients and their specialized care network have viewed their personal medical information privacy and how it has impacted their perspectives of sharing their records with their network of healthcare providers and secondary use organizations. Diabetes patients and specialized diabetes medical care providers in Eastern England were interviewed about their sharing of medical information and their privacy concerns to inform a descriptive qualitative and exploratory thematic analysis. From the interview data, we see that diabetes patients shift their perceived privacy concerns and needs throughout their lifetime due to persistence of health data, changes in health, technology advances, and experience with technology that affect one's consent decisions. From these findings, we begin to take a translational research approach in critically examining current privacy enhancing technologies for secondary use consent management and motivate the further exploration of both temporally-sensitive privacy perspectives and new options in consent management that support shifting privacy concerns over one's lifetime.

References

  1. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--10Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bridson, J., Hammond, C., Leach, A. and Chester, M.R. Making consent patient centred. British Medical Jour. 327, 7424 (2003), 1159--1161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Chalmers, J. and Muir, R.. Patient privacy and confidentiality. British Medical Jour 326, (2003), 725--726.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Chochinov, H.M. Dignity and the essence of medicine: The A, B, C, and D of dignity conserving care. British Medical Jour 335 (2007), 18Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cleeff, A., Dimkov, T., Pieters, W. and Wieringa, R. Realizing Security Requirements with Physical Properties: A Case Study on Paper Voting. In Proc. IT Convergence and Security 2011. Springer Netherlands (2012), 51--67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Department of Health. Improving Chronic Disease Management. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4075214.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Department of Health. Newly available Health Data will support Medical Research and Patient Empowerment. http://mediacentre.dh.gov.uk/2011/11/29/newly-available-health-data-will-support-medical-research-and-patient-empowerment/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Diabetes UK. Current Research. http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Research/Current-research/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Forsythe, D.E. Using ethnography to build a working system: rethinking basic design assumptions. In Proc. Computer Applications in Medical Care 1992. McGraw-Hill (1992), 510--514.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Fox, S., and Jones, S. The social life of health information. Pew Internet. www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social-Life-of-Health-Information.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. General Medical Council Standards. Confidentiality guidance: Research and other secondary uses. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/confidentiality_40_50_research_and_secondary_issues.asp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Golafshani, N. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 8, 4 (2003), 597--607.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Greene, J.A., Choudhry, N.K., Kilabuk, E. and Shrank, W.H. Online social networking by patients with diabetes: a qualitative evaluation of communication with Facebook. Jour. General Internal Medicine 26, 3 (2011), 287--292.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gross, L.S., Li, L., Ford, E.S. and Liu, S. Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the United States: an ecologic assessment. American Jour. of Clinical Nutrition 79, 5 (2004), 774--779.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. International Diabetes Federation. One Adult in Ten Will Have Diabetes by 2030. http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4075213.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaufman, D.J., Murphy-Bollinger, J., Scott, J. and Hudson, K.L. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. American Jour. of Human Genetics 85, 5 20(2009), 643--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Kaufman, F.R. Type 2 diabetes mellitus in children and youth: a new epidemic. Jour. of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, 15, Supplement (2011), 737--744.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Koro, C.E., Bowlin, S.J., Bourgeois, N. and Fedder, D.O. Glycemic control from 1988 to 2000 among US adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27, 1 (2004),17--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Lowrance, W.W. Learning from experience. Privacy and the seconda3ry use of data in health research. Nuffield Trust (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lubkin, I.M. NS Larsen, P.D. Chronic illness: Impact and interventions. Jones & Bartlett Learning (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ludman, E.J., Fullerton, S.M., Spangler, L., Trinidad, S.B., Fujii, M.M., Jarvik, G.P., Larson, E.B. and Burke, W. Glad you asked: participants' opinions of re-consent for dbGap data submission. Jour. Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 5, 3 (2010), 9--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Mays, N. and Pope, C. Qualitative research: rigour and qualitative research. British Medical Jour 311, 6997 (1995), 109.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Medical Research Council. e-Health Informatics Research -- Securing the UK as a world leader. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Ourresearch/ResearchInitiatives/E-HealthInformaticsResearch/index.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Merton, R.K. Thematic Analysis in Science: Notes on Holton. Science 188, 4186 (1975), 335--338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Narayanan, A. and Shmatikov, V. De-anonymizing social networks. In Proc. Security and Privacy 2009. IEEE (2009),173--187. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. National Health Service. Pseudonymisation Implementation Project. http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/pseudo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. National Health Service. Pseudonymisation Implementation Project (PIP): Implementation Guidance on Local NHS Data Usage and Governance for Secondary Uses. http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/pseudo/impguide.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. National Health Service. "Sealed Envelopes" Briefing Paper: "Selective Alerting" Approach. http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/infogov/confidentiality/sealedpaper.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. National Health Service. Secondary Uses Service (SUS). http://www.ic.nhs.uk/services/secondary-uses-service-sus.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Nied, R.J. and Franklin, B. Promoting and prescribing exercise for the elderly. American Family Physician 65, 3 (2002), 419--4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Or, C.K.L. and Karsh, B.T. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. Jour. of the American Medical Informatics Association 16, 4 (2009), 550--560.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Palen, L. and Aaløkke. Of pill boxes and piano benches: Home-made methods for managing medication. In Proc. of CSCW 2006, ACM Press (2006), pp. 79--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Paterson, B.L. The shifting perspectives model of chronic illness. Jour. of Nursing Scholarship 33, 1 (2001), 21--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Reddy, M.C., Dourish, P. and Pratt, W. Temporality in medical work: Time also matters. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 15, 1 (2006) 29--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Regan, P.M. Legislating privacy: Technology, social values, and public policy, University of North Carolina Press (1995). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Rial, A. and Danezis, G. Privacy-preserving smart metering. In Proc. Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society 2011, ACM (2011), 49--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Rind, D.M., Kohane, I.S., Szolovits, P., Safran, C., Chueh, H.C. and Barnett, G.O. Maintaining the confidentiality of medical records shared over the Internet and World Wide Web. Annals Internal Medicine 127, 2 (1997), 138--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Robertson, A., Cresswell, K., Takian, A., Petrakaki, D., Crowe, S., Cornford, T., Barber, N., Avery, A., Fernando, B., Jacklin, A., Prescott, R., Klecun, E., Paton, J. Lichtner, V., Quinn, C., Ali, M., Morrison, Z., Jani, Y., Waring, J., Marsden, K. and Sheikh, A. Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: qualitative analysis of interim results from a prospective national evaluation. British Medical Jour 341, (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Roter, D.L. and Hall, J.A. Physicians' interviewing styles and medical information obtained from patients. Jour. General Internal Medicine 2, 5 (1987), 325--329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Strauss, A.L. and Fagerhaugh, S. Social organization of medical work. Transaction Publishers (1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Sweeney, L. Guaranteeing anonymity when sharing medical data: the Datafly system. In Proc. AMIA Annual Fall Symposium 1997, PubMed Central (1997), 51--55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Sweeney, L. Replacing personally-identifying information in medical records: the SCRUB system. In Proc. AMIA Annual Fall Symposium 1996, PubMed Central (1997), 333--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Tunstall-Pedoe, H. Preventing Chronic Diseases. A Vital Investment: WHO Global Report. Jour. Epidemiology 35, 4 (2006), 1107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Wagner, E.H., Austin, B.T., Davis, C., Hindmarsh, M., Schaefer, J. and Bonomi, A. Improving Chronic Illness Care: Translating Evidence Into Action. Health Affairs 20, 6 (2001), 64--78.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Wicks, P., Massagli, M., Frost, J., Brownstein, C., Okun, S., Vaughan, T., Bradley, R. and Heywood, J. Sharing health data for better outcomes on PatientsLikeMe. Jour. Medical Internet Research 12, 2 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Willison, D.J., Schwartz, L., Abelson, J., Charles, C., Swinton, M., Northrup, D. and Thabane, L. Alternatives to Project-specific Consent for Access to Personal Information for Health Research: What Is the Opinion of the Canadian Public? Jour. American Medical Informatics Association 14, 6 (2007), 706--712.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. World Health Organization. Chronic diseases. http://www.who.int/topics/chronic_diseases/en/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu, S. and Green, A. Projection of chronic illness prevalence and cost inflation. RAND Health (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Non-static nature of patient consent: shifting privacy perspectives in health information sharing

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CSCW '13: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work
      February 2013
      1594 pages
      ISBN:9781450313315
      DOI:10.1145/2441776

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 February 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader