Dataset Information

'It’s not something you can take in your hands'. Swiss experts’ perspectives on health data ownership: an interview-based study

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The evolution of healthcare and biomedical research into data-rich fields has raised several questions concerning data ownership. In this paper, we aimed to analyse the perspectives of Swiss experts on the topic of health data ownership and control.

Design

In our qualitative study, we selected participants through purposive and snowball sampling. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and then analysed thematically.

Setting

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person, via phone or online.

Participants

We interviewed 48 experts (researchers, policy makers and other stakeholders) of the Swiss health-data framework.

Results

We identified different themes linked to data ownership. These include: (1) the data owner: data-subjects versus data-processors; (2) uncertainty about data ownership; (3) labour as a justification for data ownership and (4) the market value of data. Our results suggest that experts from Switzerland are still divided about who should be the data owner and also about what ownership would exactly mean. There is ambivalence between the willingness to acknowledge patients as the data owners and the fact that the effort made by data-processors (eg, researchers) to collect and manage the data entitles them to assert ownership claims towards the data themselves. Altogether, a tendency to speak about data in market terms also emerged.

Conclusions

The development of a satisfactory account of data ownership as a concept to organise the relationship between data-subjects, data-processors and data themselves is an important endeavour for Switzerland and other countries who are developing data governance in the healthcare and research domains. Setting clearer rules on who owns data and on what ownership exactly entails would be important. If this proves unfeasible, the idea that health data cannot truly belong to anyone could be promoted. However, this will not be easy, as data are seen as an asset to control and profit from.

SUBMITTER: Martani A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8039276 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Health research is gradually embracing a more collectivist approach, fueled by a new movement of open science, data sharing and collaborative partnerships. However, the existence of systemic contradictions hinders the sharing of health data and such collectivist endeavor. Therefore, this qualitative study explores these systemic barriers to a fair sharing of health data from the perspectives of Swiss stakeholders. Methods: Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit 48 experts active in the Swiss healthcare domain, from the research/policy-making field and those having a high position in a health data enterprise (e.g., health register, hospital IT data infrastructure or a national health data initiative). Semi-structured interviews were then conducted, audio-recorded, verbatim transcribed with identifying information removed to guarantee the anonymity of participants. A theoretical thematic analysis was then carried out to identify themes and subthemes related to the topic of systemic fairness for sharing health data. Results: Two themes related to the topic of systemic fairness for sharing health data were identified, namely (i) the hypercompetitive environment and (ii) the legal uncertainty blocking data sharing. The theme, hypercompetitive environment was further divided into two subthemes, (i) systemic contradictions to fair data sharing and the (ii) need of fair systemic attribution mechanisms. Discussion: From the perspectives of Swiss stakeholders, hypercompetition in the Swiss academic system is hindering the sharing of health data for secondary research purposes, with the downside effect of influencing researchers to embrace individualism for career opportunities, thereby opposing the data sharing movement. In addition, there was a perceived sense of legal uncertainty from legislations governing the sharing of health data, which adds unreasonable burdens on individual researchers, who are often unequipped to deal with such facets of their data sharing activities.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with mental disorders are treated by their general practitioner (GP). Innovative technology-based integrated care models (e.g., mental health specialist video consultations) have been proposed to facilitate access to specialist services in primary care settings. While perspectives of patients and providers have been examined, there is little insight into the perspectives of health policy experts on such models. The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of health policy experts on (1) current challenges for continuity of care, (2) anticipated benefits and barriers for implementation of mental health specialist video consultations along with (3) practical and regulative preconditions for sustained implementation in primary care.MethodsIn a cross-sectional qualitative study, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with health policy experts representing various stakeholders in the German health care system: health insurances, governmental bodies, clinicians' professional associations, and patient representatives. Following a critical realism approach, we applied a qualitative inductive content analysis to derive key themes from the material.ResultsHealth policy experts saw long waiting times for patients and a lack of collaboration between in- and outpatient mental health services as well as mental health specialists and GPs as main barriers for current continuity of care. Health policy experts also felt that video consultations bear great potential to foster coordinated care between GPs and specialists and ensure timely referral for severely burdened patients. Increased workload for the general practice staff to facilitate video consultations and difficulties in establishing reliable therapeutic alliances between patients and specialists via remote treatment were considered as major barriers. Health policy experts varied significantly in their level of knowledge concerning legal frameworks and regulations pertaining to video consultations. However, the implementation of appropriate reimbursement schemes and sufficient data protection were regarded as the major regulative challenges.ConclusionsHealth policy experts mostly consider mental health specialist video consultations as a promising way to overcome current challenges for the management of patients with mental disorders at the interface between primary and specialist care. To ensure sustained implementation, a multi-stakeholder approach accounting for the perspective of health policy experts, patients, and providers should be followed.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00012487.

Project description:BackgroundTo support the implementation of nurse-led interventions in long-term dementia care, in-depth knowledge of specific supporting factors and barriers is required. Conditions and structures of caring for people with dementia differ widely, depending on the country and the care context. Our study aimed to describe the experiences and opinions of nursing experts and managers with regard to facilitators and barriers to the implementation of nurse-led interventions in long-term dementia care.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative descriptive study using individual interviews based on qualitative vignettes as a useful stimulus to generate narrations allowing to study peoples' perceptions and beliefs. The study took place in nursing homes in the German-speaking part of Switzerland and in the Principality of Liechtenstein using purposive sampling. We intended to conduct the interviews face-to-face in a quiet room according to the participant's choice. However, due to the lockdown of nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020, we performed interviews face-to-face and by video. We analysed data thematically following Braun and Clarke to achieve a detailed, nuanced description. To verify our interpretation and to ensure congruence with participants' perspectives, we conducted member checks. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) served to structure our manuscript.ResultsSix dyads of nursing home managers and nursing experts from six nursing homes took part in our study (n = 12). Our thematic analysis yielded seven themes reflecting facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-led interventions in long-term dementia care: «A common attitude and cohesion within the organization», «Commitment on several levels», «A needs-oriented implementation», «The effect and the public perception of the intervention», «A structured and guided implementation process», «Supporting knowledge and competencies», as well as «Resources for implementing the intervention».ConclusionsTo support the implementation of nurse-led interventions in long-term dementia care, active commitment-building seems essential. It is necessary that the value of the intervention is perceptible.Commitment-building is the precondition to reach the persons involved, such as nursing home managers, nursing staff, residents and relatives. Furthermore, nurses should precisely inform about the intervention. It is necessary that the value of the intervention is perceptible. In addition, nurses should adjust the interventions to the situational needs of people with dementia, thus. Therefore, it is important to support dementia-specific competencies in long-term care. Findings indicate that the barrier is determined by the intervention and its implementation - and not by the behaviour of the person with dementia.

Project description:BackgroundThe meaningful sharing of health data between different stakeholders is central to the advancement of science and to improve care offered to individual patients. However, it is important that the interests of individual stakeholders involved in this data sharing ecosystem are taken into account to ensure fair data sharing practices. In this regard, this qualitative study investigates such practices from the perspectives of a subset of relevant Swiss expert stakeholders, using a distributive justice lens.MethodsUsing purposive and snowball sampling methodologies, 48 expert stakeholders from the Swiss healthcare and research domains were recruited for semi-structured interviews. After the experts had consented, the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, but omitting identifying information to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. A thematic analysis using a deductive approach was conducted to identify fair data sharing practices for secondary research purposes. Themes and subthemes were then identified and developed during the analysis.ResultsThree distributive justice themes were identified in the data sharing negotiation processes, and these are: (i) effort, which was subcategorized into two subthemes (i.e. a claim to data reciprocity and other reciprocal advantages, and a claim to transparency on data re-use), (ii) compensation, which was subcategorized into two subthemes (i.e. a claim to an academic compensation and a claim to a financial compensation), and lastly, (iii) contribution, i.e. the significance of data contributions should be matched with a corresponding reward.ConclusionsThis qualitative study provides insights, which could inform policy-making on claims and incentives that encourage Swiss expert stakeholders to share their datasets. Importantly, several claims have been identified and justified under the basis of distributive justice principles, whilst some are more debatable and likely insufficient in justifying data sharing activities. Nonetheless, these claims should be taken seriously and discussed more broadly. Indeed, promoting health research while ensuring that healthcare systems guarantee better services, it is paramount to ensure that solutions developed are sustainable, provide fair criteria for academic careers and promote the sharing of high quality data to advance science.

Project description:BackgroundGene drive technologies (GDTs) promote the rapid spread of a particular genetic element within a population of non-human organisms. Potential applications of GDTs include the control of insect vectors, invasive species and agricultural pests. Whether, and if so, under what conditions, GDTs should be deployed is hotly debated. Although broad stances in this debate have been described, the convictions that inform the moral views of the experts shaping these technologies and related policies have not been examined in depth in the academic literature.MethodsIn this qualitative study, we interviewed GDT experts (n = 33) from different disciplines to identify and better understand their moral views regarding these technologies. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically.ResultsThe respondents' moral views were principally influenced by their attitudes towards (1) the uncertainty related to GDTs; (2) the alternatives to which they should be compared; and (3) the role humans should have in nature. Respondents agreed there is epistemic uncertainty related to GDTs, identified similar knowledge gaps, and stressed the importance of realistic expectations in discussions on GDTs. They disagreed about whether uncertainty provides a rationale to refrain from field trials ('risks of intervention' stance) or to proceed with phased testing to obtain more knowledge given the harms of the status quo ('risks of non-intervention' stance). With regards to alternatives to tackle vector-borne diseases, invasive species and agricultural pests, respondents disagreed about which alternatives should be considered (un)feasible and (in)sufficiently explored: conventional strategies ('downstream solutions' stance) or systematic changes to health care, political and agricultural systems ('upstream solutions' stance). Finally, respondents held different views on nature and whether the use of GDTs is compatible with humans' role in nature ('interference' stance) or not ('non-interference stance').ConclusionsThis interview study helps to disentangle the debate on GDTs by providing a better understanding of the moral views of GDT experts. The obtained insights provide valuable stepping-stones for a constructive debate about underlying value conflicts and call attention to topics that deserve further (normative) reflection. Further evaluation of these issues can facilitate the debate on and responsible development of GDTs.