Participant acceptability of digital footprint data collection strategies: an exemplar approach to participant engagement and involvement in the ALSPAC birth cohort study.
ALSPAC
attitudes
co-development
data linkage
digital footprint data
engagement
longitudinal research
participant involvement
safeguards
Journal
International journal of population data science
ISSN: 2399-4908
Titre abrégé: Int J Popul Data Sci
Pays: Wales
ID NLM: 101737740
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
entrez:
6
5
2022
pubmed:
7
5
2022
medline:
10
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Digital footprint records - the tracks and traces amassed by individuals as a result of their interactions with the internet, digital devices and services - can provide ecologically valid data on individual behaviours. These could enhance longitudinal population study databanks; but few UK longitudinal studies are attempting this. When using novel sources of data, study managers must engage with participants in order to develop ethical data processing frameworks that facilitate data sharing whilst safeguarding participant interests. This paper aims to summarise the participant involvement approach used by the ALSPAC birth cohort study to inform the development of a framework for using linked participant digital footprint data, and provide an exemplar for other data linkage infrastructures. The paper synthesises five qualitative forms of inquiry. Thematic analysis was used to code transcripts for common themes in relation to conditions associated with the acceptability of sharing digital footprint data for longitudinal research. We identified six themes: participant understanding; sensitivity of location data; concerns for third parties; clarity on data granularity; mechanisms of data sharing and consent; and trustworthiness of the organisation. For cohort members to consider the sharing of digital footprint data acceptable, they require information about the value, validity and risks; control over sharing elements of the data they consider sensitive; appropriate mechanisms to authorise or object to their records being used; and trust in the organisation. Realising the potential for using digital footprint records within longitudinal research will be subject to ensuring that this use of personal data is acceptable; and that rigorously controlled population data science benefiting the public good is distinguishable from the misuse and lack of personal control of similar data within other settings. Participant co-development informs the ethical-governance framework for these novel linkages in a manner which is acceptable and does not undermine the role of the trusted data custodian.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35519823
doi: 10.23889/ijpds.v7i1.1728
pii: S2399490821017286
pmc: PMC9053133
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1728Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 217065/Z/19/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C18281/A29019
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : WT086118/Z/08/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00011/6
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C18281/A19169
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 202802/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Statement of conflicts of interests: None to be declared.
Références
Int J Epidemiol. 2021 Mar 3;50(1):293-302
pubmed: 33057662
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Aug;68(8):877-87
pubmed: 25920944
Wellcome Open Res. 2018 Jan 16;3:6
pubmed: 30854470
Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(6):368-77
pubmed: 20805700
Learn Health Syst. 2019 Aug 18;3(4):e10200
pubmed: 31641688
Int J Popul Data Sci. 2022 Mar 16;5(3):1728
pubmed: 35519823
Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Dec 3;4:192
pubmed: 32685696
Bioinformatics. 2015 Oct 15;31(20):3241-8
pubmed: 26112289
J Med Internet Res. 2021 May 17;23(5):e24236
pubmed: 33998998
Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;42(1):111-27
pubmed: 22507743
Int J Epidemiol. 2019 Aug 1;48(4):1038-1039k
pubmed: 31006025
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Apr 9;110(15):5802-5
pubmed: 23479631
J Med Ethics. 2015 May;41(5):404-9
pubmed: 25617016
Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;42(1):97-110
pubmed: 22507742
Mol Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;22(2):164-169
pubmed: 27922603
Lancet. 2014 Mar 22;383(9922):1015-6
pubmed: 24656186
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Jun 24;22(1):77
pubmed: 34167521
BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 27;12(4):e057579
pubmed: 35477868
BMC Med Ethics. 2016 Sep 02;17(1):53
pubmed: 27590183
Psychother Res. 2009 Jul;19(4-5):591-600
pubmed: 19034804
Wellcome Open Res. 2020 Mar 12;5:44
pubmed: 32904854
Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Mar 14;4:51
pubmed: 31020050
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Jul 24;15:52
pubmed: 26202794
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Mar 21;16:34
pubmed: 27001504