Trust and digital privacy in healthcare: a cross-sectional descriptive study of trust and attitudes towards uses of electronic health data among the general public in Sweden.
Attitudes
Health data
Research
Sweden
Trust
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 03 2022
04 03 2022
Historique:
received:
05
04
2021
accepted:
23
02
2022
entrez:
5
3
2022
pubmed:
6
3
2022
medline:
29
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The ability of healthcare to protect sensitive personal data in medical records and registers might influence public trust, which in turn might influence willingness to allow healthcare to use such data. The aim of this study was to examine how the general public's trust relates to their attitudes towards uses of health data. A stratified sample from the general Swedish population received a questionnaire about their willingness to share health data. Respondents were also asked about their trust in the management and protection of electronic health data. A large majority (81.9%) of respondents revealed high levels of trust in the ability of healthcare to protect electronic patient data. Good health was associated with significantly higher levels of trust compared to bad health. Respondents with low levels of trust were significantly less willing to allow personal data to be used for different purposes and were more inclined to insist on being asked for permission beforehand. Those with low levels of trust also perceived risks of unauthorized access to personal data to be higher and the likely damage of such unauthorized access worse, compared to those with high levels of trust. Trust in the ability of healthcare to protect electronic health is generally high in Sweden. Those with higher levels of trust are more willing to let their data be used, including without informed consent. It thus seems crucial to promote trust in order to be able to reap the benefits that digitalization makes possible through increased access and use of data in healthcare.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The ability of healthcare to protect sensitive personal data in medical records and registers might influence public trust, which in turn might influence willingness to allow healthcare to use such data. The aim of this study was to examine how the general public's trust relates to their attitudes towards uses of health data.
METHODS
A stratified sample from the general Swedish population received a questionnaire about their willingness to share health data. Respondents were also asked about their trust in the management and protection of electronic health data.
RESULTS
A large majority (81.9%) of respondents revealed high levels of trust in the ability of healthcare to protect electronic patient data. Good health was associated with significantly higher levels of trust compared to bad health. Respondents with low levels of trust were significantly less willing to allow personal data to be used for different purposes and were more inclined to insist on being asked for permission beforehand. Those with low levels of trust also perceived risks of unauthorized access to personal data to be higher and the likely damage of such unauthorized access worse, compared to those with high levels of trust.
CONCLUSIONS
Trust in the ability of healthcare to protect electronic health is generally high in Sweden. Those with higher levels of trust are more willing to let their data be used, including without informed consent. It thus seems crucial to promote trust in order to be able to reap the benefits that digitalization makes possible through increased access and use of data in healthcare.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35246118
doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00758-z
pii: 10.1186/s12910-022-00758-z
pmc: PMC8896318
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Eur J Public Health. 2012 Aug;22(4):459-64
pubmed: 21441560
Scand J Public Health. 2007;35(4):442-4
pubmed: 17786809
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Aug;91:10-4
pubmed: 23849233
Health Serv Res. 2018 Apr;53(2):824-845
pubmed: 28097657
Soc Sci Med. 2007 Jan;64(1):223-35
pubmed: 17045717
Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Apr;22(2):303-41
pubmed: 26002496
Milbank Q. 2001;79(4):613-39, v
pubmed: 11789119
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jun 6;166(11):842-843
pubmed: 28462419
JMIR Med Inform. 2019 Nov 26;7(4):e14050
pubmed: 31769757
Eur J Health Law. 2007 Jul;14(2):105-12
pubmed: 17847827
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Oct;21(5):798-801
pubmed: 25903142
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Jan 10;165(1):97-100
pubmed: 15642883
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 23;371(17):1570-2
pubmed: 25337746
Public Health Ethics. 2020 Nov 27;14(1):23-34
pubmed: 34234841
J Legal Stud. 2001 Jun;30(2):709-14
pubmed: 12656087
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2015 Jan;20(1):62-4
pubmed: 25038059
BMJ Open. 2012 Jan 26;2(1):e000489
pubmed: 22282539