Dataset Information

Enhancing Privacy Controls for Patients via a Selective Authentic Electronic Health Record Exchange Service: Qualitative Study of Perspectives by Medical Professionals and Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients' privacy is regarded as essential for the patient-doctor relationship. One example of a privacy-enhancing technology for user-controlled data minimization on content level is a redactable signature. It enables users to redact personal information from signed documents while preserving the validity of the signature, and thus the authenticity of the document. In this study, we present end users' evaluations of a Cloud-based selective authentic electronic health record (EHR) exchange service (SAE-service) in an electronic health use case. In the use case scenario, patients were given control to redact specified information fields in their EHR, which were signed by their doctors with a redactable signature and transferred to them into a Cloud platform. They can then selectively disclose the remaining information in the EHR, which still bears the valid digital signature, to third parties of their choice.

Objective

This study aimed to explore the perceptions, attitudes, and mental models concerning the SAE-service of 2 user roles: signers (medical professionals) and redactors (patients with different technical knowledge) in Germany and Sweden. Another objective was to elicit usability requirements for this service based on the analysis of our investigation.

Methods

We chose empirical qualitative methods to address our research objective. Designs of mock-ups for the service were used as part of our user-centered design approach in our studies with test participants from Germany and Sweden. A total of 13 individual walk-throughs or interviews were conducted with medical staff to investigate the EHR signers' perspectives. Moreover, 5 group walk-throughs in focus groups sessions with (N=32) prospective patients with different technical knowledge to investigate redactor's perspective of EHR data redaction control were used.

Results

We found that our study participants had correct mental models with regard to the redaction process. Users with some technical models lacked trust in the validity of the doctor's signature on the redacted documents. Main results to be considered are the requirements concerning the accountability of the patients' redactions and the design of redaction templates for guidance and control.

Conclusions

For the SAE-service to be means for enhancing patient control and privacy, the diverse usability and trust factors of different user groups should be considered.

SUBMITTER: Alaqra AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6322916 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundElectronic medical records (EMRs) are integrated information sources generated by health care professionals (HCPs) from various health care information systems. EMRs play crucial roles in improving the quality of care and medical decision-making and in facilitating cross-hospital health information exchange. Although many hospitals have invested considerable resources and efforts to develop EMRs for several years, the factors affecting the long-term success of EMRs, particularly in the EMR infusion stage, remain unclear.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the effects of technology, user, and task characteristics on EMR infusion to determine the factors that largely affect EMR infusion. In addition, we examined the effect of EMR infusion on individual HCP performance.MethodsA questionnaire survey was used to collect data from HCPs with >6 months experience in using EMRs in a Taiwanese teaching hospital. A total of 316 questionnaires were distributed and 211 complete copies were returned, yielding a valid response rate of 66.8%. The collected data were further analyzed using WarpPLS 5.0.ResultsEMR infusion (R2=0.771) was mainly affected by user habits (β=.411), portability (β=.217), personal innovativeness (β=.198), technostress (β=.169), and time criticality (β=.168), and individual performance (R2=0.541) was affected by EMR infusion (β=.735). This finding indicated that user (habit, personal innovativeness, and technostress), technology (portability), and task (mobility and time criticality) characteristics have major effects on EMR infusion. Furthermore, the results indicated that EMR infusion positively affects individual performance.ConclusionsThe factors identified in this study can extend information systems infusion theory and provide useful insights for the further improvement of EMR development in hospitals and by the government, specifically in its infusion stage. In addition, the developed instrument can be used as an assessment tool to identify the key factors for EMR infusion, and to evaluate the extent of EMR infusion and the individual performance of hospitals that have implemented EMR systems. Moreover, the results can help governments to understand the urgent needs of hospitals in implementing EMR systems, provide sufficient resources and support to improve the incentives of EMR development, and develop adequate EMR policies for the meaningful use of electronic health records among hospitals and clinics.

Project description:BackgroundThere is substantial prior research on the perspectives of patients on the use of health information for research. Numerous communication barriers challenge transparency between researchers and data participants in secondary database research (eg, waiver of informed consent and knowledge gaps). Individual concerns and misconceptions challenge the trust in researchers among patients despite efforts to protect data. Technical software used to protect research data can further complicate the public's understanding of research. For example, MiNDFIRL (Minimum Necessary Disclosure For Interactive Record Linkage) is a prototype software that can be used to enhance the confidentiality of data sets by restricting disclosures of identifying information during the record linkage process. However, software, such as MiNDFIRL, which is used to protect data, must overcome the aforementioned communication barriers. One proposed solution is the creation of an interactive web-based frequently asked question (FAQ) template that can be adapted and used to communicate research issues to data subjects.ObjectiveThis study aims to improve communication with patients and transparency about how complex software, such as MiNDFIRL, is used to enhance privacy in secondary database studies to maintain the public's trust in researchers.MethodsA Delphi technique with 3 rounds of the survey was used to develop the FAQ document to communicate privacy issues related to a generic secondary database study using the MiNDFIRL software. The Delphi panel consisted of 38 patients with chronic health conditions. We revised the FAQ between Delphi rounds and provided participants with a summary of the feedback. We adopted a conservative consensus threshold of less than 10% negative feedback per FAQ section.ResultsWe developed a consensus language for 21 of the 24 FAQ sections. Participant feedback demonstrated preference differences (eg, brevity vs comprehensiveness). We adapted the final FAQ into an interactive web-based format that 94% (31/33) of the participants found helpful or very helpful. The template FAQ and MiNDFIRL source code are available on GitHub. The results indicate the following patient communication considerations: patients have diverse and varied preferences; the tone is important but challenging; and patients want information on security, identifiers, and final disposition of information.ConclusionsThe findings of this study provide insights into what research-related information is useful to patients and how researchers can communicate such information. These findings align with the current understanding of health literacy and its challenges. Communication is essential to transparency and ethical data use, yet it is exceedingly challenging. Developing FAQ template language to accompany a complex software may enable researchers to provide greater transparency when informed consent is not possible.

Project description:BackgroundThe privacy of patients with mental health conditions is prominent in health information exchange (HIE) discussions, given that their potentially sensitive personal health information (PHI) may be electronically shared for various health care purposes. Currently, the patient privacy perspective in the mental health context is not well understood because of the paucity of in-depth patient privacy research; however, the evidence suggests that patient privacy perspectives are more nuanced than what has been assumed in the academic and health care community.ObjectiveThis study aimed to generate an understanding on how patients with mental health conditions feel about privacy in the context of HIE in Canada. This study also sought to identify the factors underpinning their privacy perspectives and explored how their perspectives influenced their attitudes toward HIE.MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with patients at a Canadian academic hospital for addictions and mental health. Guided by the Antecedent-Privacy Concern-Outcome macro-model, interview transcripts underwent deductive and inductive thematic analyses.ResultsWe interviewed 14 participants. Their privacy concerns varied, depending on the participant's privacy experiences and health care perceptions. Media reports of privacy breaches and hackers had little impact on participants' privacy concerns because of a fatalistic belief that privacy breaches are a reality in the digital age. Rather, direct observations and experiences with the mistreatment of PHI in health care settings caused concern. Decisions to trust others with PHI depended on past experiences with the individual (or institution) and health care needs. Participants had little knowledge of patient privacy rights and legislation but were willing to participate in HIE because of perceived individual and societal benefits.ConclusionsThis study introduces evidence that patients with mental health conditions would support HIE. Participants were pragmatic, supporting HIE because they wanted the best care possible. They also understood that their PHI was critical in supporting the single-payer Canadian health care system. Participant health care experiences informed their privacy perspectives, trust, and PHI sharing attitudes-all accentuating the importance of the patient experience in building trust in HIE. Their lack of knowledge about patient rights and PHI uses highlights the degree of trust they have in the health care system to protect their privacy. These findings suggest that the patient privacy discourse should extend beyond the oft-cited barrier of patient privacy concerns to include discussions about building trust, communicating the benefits of HIE, and improving patient experiences. Although our findings are in the Canadian context, this study highlights the importance of engaging patients in privacy policy discussions, regardless of jurisdiction, to ensure their nuanced perspectives are reflected in policy decisions on their PHI.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the electronic health record system adoption rate has reached 96% in the United States, implementation and usage of health information exchange (HIE) is still lagging behind. Blockchain has come into the spotlight as a technology to solve this problem. However, there have been no studies assessing the perspectives of different stakeholders regarding blockchain-based patient-centered HIE.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to analyze the awareness among patients, health care professionals, and information technology developers toward blockchain-based HIE, and compare their different perspectives related to the platform using a qualitative research methodology.MethodsIn this qualitative study, we applied grounded theory and the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in the Health Service (PARiHS) framework. We interviewed 7 patients, 7 physicians, and 7 developers, for a total of 21 interviewees.ResultsRegarding the leakage of health information, the patient group did not have concerns in contrast to the physician and developer groups. Physicians were particularly concerned about the fact that errors in the data cannot be easily fixed due to the nature of blockchain technology. Patients were not against the idea of providing information for clinical trials or research institutions. They wished to be provided with the results of clinical research rather than being compensated for providing data. The developers emphasized that blockchain must be technically mature before it can be applied to the health care scene, and standards of medical information to be exchanged must first be established.ConclusionsThe three groups' perceptions of blockchain were generally positive about the idea of patients having the control of sharing their own health information. However, they were skeptical about the cooperation among various institutions and implementation for data standardization in the establishment process, in addition to how the service will be employed in practice. Taking these factors into consideration during planning, development, and operation of a platform will contribute to establishing practical treatment plans and tracking in a more convenient manner for both patients and physicians. Furthermore, it will help expand the related research and health management industry based on blockchain.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Protecting the privacy of research participants is widely recognized as one of the standard ethical requirements for clinical research. It is unknown, however, how research professionals regard concepts of privacy as well as the situations in the research setting that require privacy protections. The aim of this study was to explore the views of research professionals from Arab countries regarding concepts and scope of privacy that occur in clinical research. METHODS:We adopted an exploratory qualitative approach by the use of focus group discussions. We recruited individuals involved in research from Egypt and Morocco. We analyzed focus group data via a constant comparison approach, which consisted of close reading of the transcribed interviews followed by coding and then determining themes and subthemes. RESULTS:Between August 2016 and July 2018, we conducted nine focus group discussions. Respondents discussed several privacy issues that occurred before the research began (e.g., recruitment practices); during research (e.g., data collection and physical exams), and after the research (e.g., secondary use of data and data sharing). Respondents revealed their perspectives of patients towards privacy in the clinical and research settings and mentioned that patients are more likely to permit access to their privacy in the clinical setting compared with research setting due to the existence of benefits and trust in clinical care. Respondents also recommended training regarding data protections for individuals involved in research. CONCLUSIONS:Our study shows that research professionals discussed a range of privacy issues that are present during the different stages of research. We recommend 1) development of standards regarding privacy protections during recruitment efforts; 2) additional training for individuals involved in research regarding best practices with data security in secondary research; 3) a quantitative study involving investigators and REC members to determine their knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding privacy issues that occur in research; and 4) a quantitative study involving patients to elicit their views regarding their privacy concerns in research.

Project description:BackgroundPatients in a range of health care sectors can access their medical health records using a patient portal. In mental health care, the use of patient portals among mental health care professionals remains low. Mental health care professionals are concerned that patient access to electronic health records (EHRs) will negatively affect the patient's well-being and privacy as well as the professional's own workload.ObjectiveThis study aims to provide insights into the appraisal work of mental health care professionals to assess and understand patient access to their EHRs through a patient portal.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study that included 10 semistructured interviews (n=11) and a focus group (n=10). Participants in both the interviews and the focus group were mental health care professionals from different professional backgrounds and staff employees (eg, team leaders and communication advisors). We collected data on their opinions and experiences with the recently implemented patient portal and their attempts to modify work practices.ResultsOur study provides insights into mental health care professionals' appraisal work to assess and understand patient access to the EHR through a patient portal. A total of four topics emerged from our data analysis: appraising the effect on the patient-professional relationship, appraising the challenge of sharing and registering delicate information, appraising patient vulnerability, and redefining consultation routines and registration practices.ConclusionsMental health care professionals struggle with the effects of web-based patient access and are searching for the best ways to modify their registration and consultation practices. Our participants seem to appraise the effects of web-based patient access individually. Our study signals the lack of systematization and communal appraisal. It also suggests various solutions to the challenges faced by mental health care professionals. To optimize the effects of web-based patient access to EHRs, mental health care professionals need to be involved in the process of developing, implementing, and embedding patient portals.

Project description:BackgroundAround half the US population uses dietary supplements (DS), and concomitant use with medications is common. Many DS include bioactive substances that can interact with medications; therefore, accurate tracking is critical for patient safety. Unfortunately, documentation of patients' DS use is often missing or incomplete in the electronic medical record (EMR), leaving patients susceptible to potential adverse events. Novel approaches to assist healthcare professionals (HCPs) in capturing patients' DS use are needed.ObjectiveTo assess HCPs' perspectives on challenges and facilitators of DS documentation in the EMR and their opinions on a proposed mHealth application (app) to aid in DS capture.MethodsHCPs, recruited from professional networks, largely in North Carolina, using purposive sampling, took part in semi-structured interviews. We inquired about HCPs' experiences with DS documentation in the EMR and their opinions about our proposed mHealth app. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Thematic analysis included deductive codes based on the interview guide, and inductive codes that emerged during transcript review.ResultsHCPs (N = 30) included 60% females, mean age 46 ± 10; 70% White. Pharmacists (20%), nurses (17%), and physicians (17%) were the most represented professions. Years in practice ranged from 3-35 years. Most HCPs were concerned about DS safety and potential supplement-drug interactions, and cited several barriers to accurate EMR DS documentation including time constraints, database inconsistencies, and poor patient-HCP communication about DS. HCPs' views on our proposed mHealth app were generally positive. They expressed that our proposed mHealth app could streamline documentation processes and enhance patient-provider communication. HCPs expressed desire for a high-quality mHealth app that includes access to evidence-based DS information, integrates with the EMR, and does not increase time burdens.ConclusionHCPs believe documentation of patients' DS use is important but not accurately captured in the EMR. Support was expressed for our proposed barcode-scanning DS mHealth app.