Citizens' Views on Sharing Their Health Data: the Role of Competence, Reliability and Pursuing the Common Good.
Background
In this article, we raise several questions regarding how people consider what they do or do not consent to and the reasons why. This article presents the findings of a citizen forum study conducted for the University of Geneva in partnership with the Geneva University Hospitals to explore the opinions and concerns of members of the public society regarding predictive oncology, genetic sequencing, and cancer.
Methods
This paper present the results of a citizen forum that included 73 participants. A research tool titled "the mechanics of consent" was design for this study. This tool is table designed to allow participants to reflect on social and research actors, types of data, and desired levels of control while sharing different types of data with different actors. Participants’ discussion that led to the completion of each table were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis.
Results
The results are a compilation of responses from the mechanics of consent tool divided into two sections; the first quantitative results presenting of collective responses regarding attitudes to consent to donate their data by qualitative findings emerged from the discussion amongst participants.
Discussion
Choice and control of personal data is crucial for the public to be able to decide who and how to trust. Key information to be disclosed to potential research participants shall include information about potential risks and benefits; who will be accessing and using their data; as well as assurances that their choice will be respected. Furthermore, researchers ought to make sure they are trustworthy, meaning they are responsible to accept or refuse trust when it is misplaced or built upon unrealistic expectations. Finally, informed consent is one of the various elements that contribute to conducting ethical research, more needs to be done to strengthen governance and ensure adequate protection to research participants particularly to address issues related to predictive health analytics.
Due to technical limitations, table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is only available as a download in the Supplemental Files section.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Posted 29 Sep, 2020
On 14 Dec, 2020
Received 10 Nov, 2020
Received 14 Oct, 2020
On 28 Sep, 2020
On 22 Sep, 2020
Received 31 Jul, 2020
Invitations sent on 23 Jul, 2020
On 23 Jul, 2020
On 07 Jul, 2020
On 06 Jul, 2020
On 06 Jul, 2020
Citizens' Views on Sharing Their Health Data: the Role of Competence, Reliability and Pursuing the Common Good.
Posted 29 Sep, 2020
On 14 Dec, 2020
Received 10 Nov, 2020
Received 14 Oct, 2020
On 28 Sep, 2020
On 22 Sep, 2020
Received 31 Jul, 2020
Invitations sent on 23 Jul, 2020
On 23 Jul, 2020
On 07 Jul, 2020
On 06 Jul, 2020
On 06 Jul, 2020
Background
In this article, we raise several questions regarding how people consider what they do or do not consent to and the reasons why. This article presents the findings of a citizen forum study conducted for the University of Geneva in partnership with the Geneva University Hospitals to explore the opinions and concerns of members of the public society regarding predictive oncology, genetic sequencing, and cancer.
Methods
This paper present the results of a citizen forum that included 73 participants. A research tool titled "the mechanics of consent" was design for this study. This tool is table designed to allow participants to reflect on social and research actors, types of data, and desired levels of control while sharing different types of data with different actors. Participants’ discussion that led to the completion of each table were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis.
Results
The results are a compilation of responses from the mechanics of consent tool divided into two sections; the first quantitative results presenting of collective responses regarding attitudes to consent to donate their data by qualitative findings emerged from the discussion amongst participants.
Discussion
Choice and control of personal data is crucial for the public to be able to decide who and how to trust. Key information to be disclosed to potential research participants shall include information about potential risks and benefits; who will be accessing and using their data; as well as assurances that their choice will be respected. Furthermore, researchers ought to make sure they are trustworthy, meaning they are responsible to accept or refuse trust when it is misplaced or built upon unrealistic expectations. Finally, informed consent is one of the various elements that contribute to conducting ethical research, more needs to be done to strengthen governance and ensure adequate protection to research participants particularly to address issues related to predictive health analytics.
Due to technical limitations, table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is only available as a download in the Supplemental Files section.