Dataset Information

Sharing administrative health data with private industry: A report on two citizens' juries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is good evidence of both community support for sharing public sector administrative health data in the public interest and concern about data security, misuse and loss of control over health information, particularly if private sector organizations are the data recipients. To date, there is little research describing the perspectives of informed community members on private sector use of public health data and, particularly, on the conditions under which that use might be justified.

Methods

Two citizens' juries were held in February 2020 in two locations close to Sydney, Australia. Jurors considered the charge: 'Under what circumstances is it permissible for governments to share health data with private industry for research and development?'

Results

All jurors, bar one, in principle supported sharing government administrative health data with private industry for research and development. The support was conditional and the juries' recommendations specifying these conditions related closely to the concerns they identified in deliberation.

Conclusion

The outcomes of the deliberative processes suggest that informed Australian citizens are willing to accept sharing their administrative health data, including with private industry, providing the intended purpose is clearly of public benefit, sharing occurs responsibly in a framework of accountability, and the data are securely held.

Patient and public contribution

The design of the jury was guided by an Advisory Group including representatives from a health consumer organization. The jurors themselves were selected to be descriptively representative of their communities and with independent facilitation wrote the recommendations.

SUBMITTER: Street J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8369100 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of government health data for secondary purposes, such as monitoring the quality of hospital services, researching the health needs of populations, and testing how well new treatments work, is increasing. This increase in the secondary uses of health data has led to increased interest in what the public thinks about data sharing, in particular, the possibilities of sharing with the private sector for research and development. Although international evidence demonstrates broad public support for the secondary use of health data, this support does not extend to sharing health data with the private sector. If governments intend to share health data with the private sector, knowing what the public thinks will be important. This paper reports a national survey to explore public attitudes in Australia toward sharing health data with private companies for research on and development of therapeutic drugs and medical devices.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore public attitudes in Australia toward sharing government health data with the private sector.MethodsA web-based survey tool was developed to assess attitudes about sharing government health data with the private sector. A market research company was employed to administer the web-based survey in June 2019.ResultsThe survey was completed by 2537 individuals residing in Australia. Between 51.8% and 57.98% of all participants were willing to share their data, with slightly fewer in favor of sharing to improve health services (51.99%) and a slightly higher proportion in favor of sharing for research and development (57.98%). There was a preference for opt-in consent (53.44%) and broad support for placing conditions on sharing health information with private companies (62% to 91.99%). Wide variability was also observed in participants' views about the extent to which the private sector could be trusted and how well they would behave if entrusted with people's health information. In their qualitative responses, the participants noted concerns about private sector corporate interests, corruption, and profit making and expressed doubt about the Australian government's capacity to manage data sharing safely. The percentages presented are adjusted against the Australian population.ConclusionsThis nationally representative survey provides preliminary evidence that Australians are uncertain about sharing their health data with the private sector. Although just over half of all the respondents supported sharing health data with the private sector, there was also strong support for strict conditions on sharing data and for opt-in consent and significant concerns about how well the private sector would manage government health data. Addressing public concern about sharing government health data with the private sector will require more and better engagement to build community understanding about how agencies can collect, share, protect, and use their personal data.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trial transparency is important to participants, trialists, publishers, and regulators, and there have been recent major policy changes by the pharmaceutical industry regarding clinical study data sharing. However, it is unknown if these changes are enabling independent researchers to access participant-level data from prominent contemporary clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry 2 years after publication of the primary results.Main textPubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify clinical trials of medicines sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry and first published between 1 July 2015 and 31 December 2015 in the top 10 general and internal medical journals by impact factor. For each clinical trial, the eligibility of independent researchers to request participant-level data was identified via the sponsor having a data sharing policy/process and a positive response to an enquiry. Fifty-six publications reporting on 61 industry-sponsored clinical trials were identified, of which 32 (52%) had a public data sharing policy/process and 9 (15%) were confirmed eligible for data sharing. Industry sponsors within the top 25 by global sales were more likely to have a data sharing policy (93% vs 10%), and there was a trend towards increased data sharing eligibility (23% vs 4%). Twenty-six studies were explicitly confirmed as ineligible for data sharing. The two most common data sharing policy conditions that prevented sharing of data for published results were the exclusion of studies that had ongoing follow-up of the published results and the exclusion of studies of medicines that have not yet achieved regulatory approval in the USA and the European Union.ConclusionsFifteen percent of the sampled clinical trials were available for data sharing 2 years after publication of primary results of the trial. Key issues limiting data sharing include a large proportion of industry sponsors who do not have a data sharing policy/process, and data sharing policy conditions that exclude access on the basis of ongoing follow-up and regulatory activity.

Project description:A substantial body of research describes the distribution, causes and potential reduction of health inequalities, yet little scholarship examines public understandings of these inequalities. Existing work is dominated by small-scale, qualitative studies of the experiences of specific communities. As a result, we know very little about what broader publics think about health inequalities; and even less about public views of potential policy responses. This is an important gap since previous research shows many researchers and policymakers believe proposals for 'upstream' policies are unlikely to attract sufficient public support to be viable. This mixed methods study combined a nationally representative survey with three two-day citizens' juries exploring public views of health inequalities and potential policy responses in three UK cities (Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool) in July 2016. Comparing public opinion elicited via a survey to public reasoning generated through deliberative processes offers insight into the formation of public views. The results challenge perceptions that there is a lack of public support for upstream, macro-level policy proposals and instead demonstrate support for proposals aiming to tackle health inequalities via improvements to living and working conditions, with more limited support for proposals targeting individual behavioural change. At the same time, some macro-economic proposals, notably those involving tax increases, proved controversial among study participants and results varied markedly by data source. Our analysis suggests that this results from three intersecting factors: a resistance to ideas viewed as disempowering (which include, fundamentally, the idea that health inequalities exist); the prevalence of individualising and fatalistic discourses, which inform resistance to diverse policy proposals (but especially those that are more 'upstream', macro-level proposals); and a lack of trust in (local and national) government. This suggests that efforts to enhance public support for evidence-informed policy responses to health inequalities may struggle unless these broader challenges are also addressed.

Project description:Introduction:Innovative data platforms (e.g. biobanks, repositories) continually emerge to facilitate data sharing. Extant and emerging data platforms must navigate myriad tensions for successful data sharing and re-use. Two Alberta data platforms navigated such processes and factors regarding administrative, research and nonprofit data: the Child & Youth Data Laboratory (CYDL) and Secondary Analysis to Generate Evidence (SAGE). Objectives:To clarify the social and policy factors that influenced CYDL and SAGE establishment and implementation, and the relationships, if any, between these factors and data type. Methods:This paper involves a qualitative secondary analysis of two developmental evaluations on CYDL and SAGE establishment. Six-years post-implementation, the CYDL evaluation entailed document review; website user analysis; interviews (n=30); online stakeholder survey (n=260); and an environmental scan. One-year post implementation, the SAGE evaluation included 15 interviews and document review. We used thematic analysis and comparisons with the literature to identify key factors. Results:Three (not mutually exclusive) categories of social and policy factors influenced the navigation towards CYDL and SAGE realization: trusting relationships; sustainability amidst readiness; and privacy within social context. For these platforms to be able to manage, link or share data, trust had to be fostered and maintained across multiple, dynamic and intersecting relationships between primary data producers, data subjects, secondary users and institutions. Platform sustainability required capacity building and innovation. Privacy and information sharing evolved culturally and correspondingly for these data platforms, which required constant flexibility and awareness. Conclusions:This analysis calls for more empirical research on the value of data re-use or the detriment in not re-using data. While the culture of information sharing is progressing towards greater openness and capacity for data sharing and re-use, successful data platforms must advocate, facilitate and mobilize analysis and innovation using data re-use while being cognizant of social and policy influences.

Project description:BackgroundStudies have suggested that agreement between administrative health data and self-report for asthma status ranges from fair to good, but few studies benefited from administrative health data over a long period. We aimed to (1) evaluate agreement between asthma status ascertained in administrative health data covering a period of 30 years and from self-report, and (2) identify determinants of agreement between the two sources.MethodsWe used administrative health data (1983-2012) from the Quebec Birth Cohort on Immunity and Health, which included 81,496 individuals born in the province of Quebec, Canada, in 1974. Additional information, including self-reported asthma, was collected by telephone interview with 1643 participants in 2012. By design, half of them had childhood asthma based on health services utilization. Results were weighted according to the inverse of the sampling probabilities. Five algorithms were applied to administrative health data (having ≥ 2 physician claims over a 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, or 30-year interval or ≥ 1 hospitalization), to enable comparisons with previous studies. We estimated the proportion of overall agreement and Kappa, between asthma status derived from algorithms and self-reports. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with agreement.ResultsApplying the five algorithms, the prevalence of asthma ranged from 49 to 55% among the 1643 participants. At interview (mean age = 37 years), 49% and 47% of participants respectively reported ever having asthma and asthma diagnosed by a physician. Proportions of agreement between administrative health data and self-report ranged from 88 to 91%, with Kappas ranging from 0.57 (95% CI: 0.52-0.63) to 0.67 (95% CI: 0.62-0.72); the highest values were obtained with the [≥ 2 physician claims over a 30-year interval or ≥ 1 hospitalization] algorithm. Having sought health services for allergic diseases other than asthma was related to lower agreement (Odds ratio = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.25-0.65 comparing ≥ 1 health services to none).ConclusionsThese findings indicate good agreement between asthma status defined from administrative health data and self-report. Agreement was higher than previously observed, which may be due to the 30-year lookback window in administrative data. Our findings support using both administrative health data and self-report in population-based epidemiological studies.