Dataset Information

Data Anonymization for Pervasive Health Care: Systematic Literature Mapping Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Data science offers an unparalleled opportunity to identify new insights into many aspects of human life with recent advances in health care. Using data science in digital health raises significant challenges regarding data privacy, transparency, and trustworthiness. Recent regulations enforce the need for a clear legal basis for collecting, processing, and sharing data, for example, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (2016) and the United Kingdom's Data Protection Act (2018). For health care providers, legal use of the electronic health record (EHR) is permitted only in clinical care cases. Any other use of the data requires thoughtful considerations of the legal context and direct patient consent. Identifiable personal and sensitive information must be sufficiently anonymized. Raw data are commonly anonymized to be used for research purposes, with risk assessment for reidentification and utility. Although health care organizations have internal policies defined for information governance, there is a significant lack of practical tools and intuitive guidance about the use of data for research and modeling. Off-the-shelf data anonymization tools are developed frequently, but privacy-related functionalities are often incomparable with regard to use in different problem domains. In addition, tools to support measuring the risk of the anonymized data with regard to reidentification against the usefulness of the data exist, but there are question marks over their efficacy.

Objective

In this systematic literature mapping study, we aim to alleviate the aforementioned issues by reviewing the landscape of data anonymization for digital health care.

Methods

We used Google Scholar, Web of Science, Elsevier Scopus, and PubMed to retrieve academic studies published in English up to June 2020. Noteworthy gray literature was also used to initialize the search. We focused on review questions covering 5 bottom-up aspects: basic anonymization operations, privacy models, reidentification risk and usability metrics, off-the-shelf anonymization tools, and the lawful basis for EHR data anonymization.

Results

We identified 239 eligible studies, of which 60 were chosen for general background information; 16 were selected for 7 basic anonymization operations; 104 covered 72 conventional and machine learning-based privacy models; four and 19 papers included seven and 15 metrics, respectively, for measuring the reidentification risk and degree of usability; and 36 explored 20 data anonymization software tools. In addition, we also evaluated the practical feasibility of performing anonymization on EHR data with reference to their usability in medical decision-making. Furthermore, we summarized the lawful basis for delivering guidance on practical EHR data anonymization.

Conclusions

This systematic literature mapping study indicates that anonymization of EHR data is theoretically achievable; yet, it requires more research efforts in practical implementations to balance privacy preservation and usability to ensure more reliable health care applications.

SUBMITTER: Zuo Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8556642 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: The evolving concepts of pervasive computing, ubiquitous computing and ambient intelligence are increasingly influencing health care and medicine. Summarizing published research, this literature review provides an overview of recent developments and implementations of pervasive computing systems in health care. It also highlights some of the experiences reported in deployment processes. METHODS: There is no clear definition of pervasive computing in the current literature. Thus specific inclusion criteria for selecting articles about relevant systems were developed. Searches were conducted in four scientific databases alongside manual journal searches for the period of 2002 to 2006. Articles included present prototypes, case studies and pilot studies, clinical trials and systems that are already in routine use. RESULTS: The searches identified 69 articles describing 67 different systems. In a quantitative analysis, these systems were categorized into project status, health care settings, user groups, improvement aims, and systems features (i.e., component types, data gathering, data transmission, systems functions). The focus is on the types of systems implemented, their frequency of occurrence and their characteristics. Qualitative analyses were performed of deployment issues, such as organizational and personnel issues, privacy and security issues, and financial issues. This paper provides a comprehensive access to the literature of the emerging field by addressing specific topics of application settings, systems features, and deployment experiences. CONCLUSION: Both an overview and an analysis of the literature on a broad and heterogeneous range of systems are provided. Most systems are described in their prototype stages. Deployment issues, such as implications on organization or personnel, privacy concerns, or financial issues are mentioned rarely, though their solution is regarded as decisive in transferring promising systems to a stage of regular operation. There is a need for further research on the deployment of pervasive computing systems, including clinical studies, economic and social analyses, user studies, etc.

Project description:BackgroundThe benefits of data and analytics for health care systems and single providers is an increasingly investigated field in digital health literature. Electronic health records (EHR), for example, can improve quality of care. Emerging analytics tools based on artificial intelligence show the potential to assist physicians in day-to-day workflows. Yet, single health care providers also need information regarding the economic impact when deciding on potential adoption of these tools.ObjectiveThis paper examines the question of whether data and analytics provide economic advantages or disadvantages for health care providers. The goal is to provide a comprehensive overview including a variety of technologies beyond computer-based patient records. Ultimately, findings are also intended to determine whether economic barriers for adoption by providers could exist.MethodsA systematic literature search of the PubMed and Google Scholar online databases was conducted, following the hermeneutic methodology that encourages iterative search and interpretation cycles. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to 165 initially identified studies, 50 were included for qualitative synthesis and topic-based clustering.ResultsThe review identified 5 major technology categories, namely EHRs (n=30), computerized clinical decision support (n=8), advanced analytics (n=5), business analytics (n=5), and telemedicine (n=2). Overall, 62% (31/50) of the reviewed studies indicated a positive economic impact for providers either via direct cost or revenue effects or via indirect efficiency or productivity improvements. When differentiating between categories, however, an ambiguous picture emerged for EHR, whereas analytics technologies like computerized clinical decision support and advanced analytics predominantly showed economic benefits.ConclusionsThe research question of whether data and analytics create economic benefits for health care providers cannot be answered uniformly. The results indicate ambiguous effects for EHRs, here representing data, and mainly positive effects for the significantly less studied analytics field. The mixed results regarding EHRs can create an economic barrier for adoption by providers. This barrier can translate into a bottleneck to positive economic effects of analytics technologies relying on EHR data. Ultimately, more research on economic effects of technologies other than EHRs is needed to generate a more reliable evidence base.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organisation framed responsiveness, fair financing and equity as intrinsic goals of health systems. However, of the three, responsiveness received significantly less attention. Responsiveness is essential to strengthen systems' functioning; provide equitable and accountable services; and to protect the rights of citizens. There is an urgency to make systems more responsive, but our understanding of responsiveness is limited. We therefore sought to map existing evidence on health system responsiveness.MethodsA mixed method systemized evidence mapping review was conducted. We searched PubMed, EbscoHost, and Google Scholar. Published and grey literature; conceptual and empirical publications; published between 2000 and 2020 and English language texts were included. We screened titles and abstracts of 1119 publications and 870 full texts.ResultsSix hundred twenty-one publications were included in the review. Evidence mapping shows substantially more publications between 2011 and 2020 (n = 462/621) than earlier periods. Most of the publications were from Europe (n = 139), with more publications relating to High Income Countries (n = 241) than Low-to-Middle Income Countries (n = 217). Most were empirical studies (n = 424/621) utilized quantitative methodologies (n = 232), while qualitative (n = 127) and mixed methods (n = 63) were more rare. Thematic analysis revealed eight primary conceptualizations of 'health system responsiveness', which can be fitted into three dominant categorizations: 1) unidirectional user-service interface; 2) responsiveness as feedback loops between users and the health system; and 3) responsiveness as accountability between public and the system.ConclusionsThis evidence map shows a substantial body of available literature on health system responsiveness, but also reveals evidential gaps requiring further development, including: a clear definition and body of theory of responsiveness; the implementation and effectiveness of feedback loops; the systems responses to this feedback; context-specific mechanism-implementation experiences, particularly, of LMIC and fragile-and conflict affected states; and responsiveness as it relates to health equity, minority and vulnerable populations. Theoretical development is required, we suggest separating ideas of services and systems responsiveness, applying a stronger systems lens in future work. Further agenda-setting and resourcing of bridging work on health system responsiveness is suggested.