Dataset Information

Australian general practitioner perceptions to sharing clinical data for secondary use: a mixed method approach.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The potential for data collected in general practice to be linked and used to address health system challenges of maintaining quality care, accessibility and safety, including pandemic support, has led to an increased interest in public acceptability of data sharing, however practitioners have rarely been asked to share their opinions on the topic. This paper attempts to gain an understanding of general practitioner's perceptions on sharing routinely collected data for the purposes of healthcare planning and research. It also compares findings with data sharing perceptions in an international context. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mixed methods approach combining an initial online survey followed by face-to-face interviews (before and during COVID-19), designed to identify the barriers and facilitators to sharing data, were conducted on a cross sectional convenience sample of general practitioners across Western Australia (WA).

Results

Eighty online surveys and ten face-to-face interviews with general practitioners were conducted from November 2020 - May 2021. Although respondents overwhelmingly identified the importance of population health research, their willingness to participate in data sharing programs was determined by a perception of trust associated with the organisation collecting and analysing shared data; a clearly defined purpose and process of collected data; including a governance structure providing confidence in the data sharing initiative simultaneously enabling a process of data sovereignty and autonomy.

Discussion

Results indicate strong agreement around the importance of sharing patient's medical data for population and health research and planning. Concerns pertaining to lack of trust, governance and secondary use of data continue to be a setback to data sharing with implications for primary care business models being raised.

Conclusion

To further increase general practitioner's confidence in sharing their clinical data, efforts should be directed towards implementing a robust data governance structure with an emphasis on transparency and representative stakeholder inclusion as well as identifying the role of government and government funded organisations, as well as building trust with the entities collecting and analysing the data.

SUBMITTER: Varhol RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9247967 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveSensitive health information possesses risks, such as stigma and discrimination, when disclosed. Few studies have used a patient's own electronic health records (EHRs) to explore what types of information are considered sensitive andhow such perceptions affect data sharing preferences. After a systematic literature review, we designed and piloted a mixed-method approach that employs an individual's own records to assess content sensitivity and preferences for granular data sharing for care and research.MethodsA systematic literature review of methodologies employed to assess data sharing willingness and perceptions on data sensitivity was conducted. A methodology was designed to organize and categorize sensitive health information from EHRs. Patients were asked permission to access their EHRs, including those available through the state's health information exchange. A semi-structured interview script with closed card sorting was designed and personalized to each participant's own EHRs using 30 items from each patient record. This mixed method combines the quantitative outcomes from the card sorting exercises with themes captured from interview audio recording analysis.ResultsEight publications on patients' perspectives on data sharing and sensitivity were found. Based on our systematic review, the proposed method meets a need to use EHRs to systematize the study of data privacy issues. Twenty-five patients with behavioral health conditions, English and Spanish-speaking, were recruited. On average, participants recognized 82.7% of the 30 items from their own EHRs. Participants considered mental health (76.0%), sexual and reproductive health (75.0%) and alcohol use and alcoholism (50.0%) sensitive information. Participants were willing to share information related to other addictions (100.0%), genetic data (95.8%) and general physical health information (90.5%).ConclusionThe findings indicate diversity in patient views on EHR sensitivity and data sharing preferences and the need for more granular and patient-centered electronic consent mechanisms to accommodate patient needs. More research is needed to validate the generalizability of the proposed methodology.

Project description:BackgroundGeneral Practitioners (GPs) are involved in preconception, pregnancy, and postnatal care. Overall, mental health remains a significant contributor to disease burden affecting 1 in 4 pregnant women. Psychotropic medication prescribing occurs in almost 1 in 12 pregnancies, and appears to be increasing, along with the prevalence of mental health disorders in women of reproductive age. Perinatal mental health management is therefore not an unlikely scenario within their clinical practice. This scoping review aims to map current research related to GPs perceptions and experiences of managing perinatal mental health.MethodA comprehensive search strategy using nine electronic databases, and grey literature was undertaken between December 2021 and February 2023. Relevant studies were sourced from peer review databases using key terms related to perinatal mental health and general practitioners. Search results were screened on title, abstract and full text to assess those meeting inclusion criteria and relevance to the research question.ResultsAfter screening, 16 articles were included in the scoping review. The majority focused on perinatal depression. Findings support that GPs express confidence with diagnosing perinatal depression but report issues of stigma navigating a diagnosis. Over the last two decades, prescribing confidence in perinatal mental health remains variable with concerns for the safety profile of medication, low level of confidence in providing information and a strong reliance on personal experience. Despite the establishment of perinatal guidelines by countries, the utilisation of these and other existing resources by GPs appears from current literature to be infrequent. Many challenges exist for GPs around time pressures, a lack of information and resources, and difficulty accessing referral to services.ConclusionRecommendations following this scoping review include targeted perinatal education programs specific for GPs and embedded within training programs and the development of practice guidelines and resources specific to general practice that recognises time, services, and funding limitations. To achieve this future research is first needed on how guidelines and resources can be developed and best delivered to optimise GP engagement to improve knowledge and enhance patient care.

Project description:BackgroundDespite evidence of the effectiveness of cancer preventive services and the increasing development of guidelines, actual rates of delivery of cancer prevention activities remain low. Due to their frequent front-line contact with the public, family physicians (GPs) have the potential to play an important role in the primary prevention of cancer. However, there is a lack of information about their actual role in cancer prevention. The aim of this study was to investigate the actual and potential roles of general practitioners (GP) in the prevention of cancer.MethodsA sequential exploratory mixed methods approach was used. The sample included all the General Practice (GP) practices in a region in the UK (n=345). Postal questionnaires were administered to GPs (n=1249); following 290 returns (response rate 23%), semi-structured interviews were undertaken with GPs (n=14).ResultsThe majority of the GP respondents (66.4%, n=184) considered that they routinely provided cancer prevention information. This was specifically focusing on smoking cessation as almost all GPs (96.8%, n=270) enquired about a patient's smoking status. Overall, 47.2% (n=128) of GP respondents indicated that they felt they did not have time to perform a cancer prevention role; however, 88.3% (n=242) still felt that they had the 'opportunity' to do so. Over half the sample (61.3%, n=168) indicated that imposed health priorities and targets militated against providing cancer prevention activities. Almost all the GP respondents (98.9%, n=273) agreed with empowering individuals to take responsibility for their health issues. The GPs identified the need for alternative models for cancer prevention beyond current face to face patient care, including other health and non-health professionals. Whilst lack of time was identified as a critical factor, the GPs indicated that significant efforts were made to encourage patients to take personal responsibility for lifestyle choices.ConclusionsThe GPs indicated a need for training around behavioural change and theories of motivation and action. This has implications for primary care and family physicians worldwide. While doctor-patient consultations and the physicians' credibility offer great potential for cancer prevention, time pressures and imposed government targets often mean that their actual cancer prevention role is reduced.