Public attitudes towards sharing loyalty card data for academic health research: a qualitative study.
Attitudes
COVID-19 research
Cancer research
Health research
Loyalty card
Personal data
Qualitative
Safeguards
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 06 2022
07 06 2022
Historique:
received:
22
11
2021
accepted:
04
05
2022
entrez:
7
6
2022
pubmed:
8
6
2022
medline:
10
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A growing number of studies show the potential of loyalty card data for use in health research. However, research into public perceptions of using this data is limited. This study aimed to investigate public attitudes towards donating loyalty card data for academic health research, and the safeguards the public would want to see implemented. The way in which participant attitudes varied according to whether loyalty card data would be used for either cancer or COVID-19 research was also examined. Participants (N = 40) were recruited via Prolific Academic to take part in semi-structured telephone interviews, with questions focused on data sharing related to either COVID-19 or ovarian/bowel cancer as the proposed health condition to be researched. Content analysis was used to identify sub-themes corresponding to the two a priori themes, attitudes and safeguards. Participant attitudes were found to fall into two categories, either rational or emotional. Under rational, most participants were in favour of sharing loyalty card data. Support of health research was seen as an important reason to donate such data, with loyalty card logs being considered as already within the public domain. With increased understanding of research purpose, participants expressed higher willingness to donate data. Within the emotional category, participants shared fears about revealing location information and of third parties obtaining their data. With regards to safeguards, participants described the importance of anonymisation and the level of data detail; the control, convenience and choice they desired in sharing data; and the need for transparency and data security. The change in hypothetical purpose of the data sharing, from Covid-19 to cancer research, had no impact on participants' decision to donate, although did affect their understanding of how loyalty card data could be used. Based on interviews with the public, this study contributes recommendations for those researchers and the wider policy community seeking to obtain loyalty card data for health research. Whilst participants were largely in favour of donating loyalty card data for academic health research, information, choice and appropriate safeguards are all exposed as prerequisites upon which decisions are made.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A growing number of studies show the potential of loyalty card data for use in health research. However, research into public perceptions of using this data is limited. This study aimed to investigate public attitudes towards donating loyalty card data for academic health research, and the safeguards the public would want to see implemented. The way in which participant attitudes varied according to whether loyalty card data would be used for either cancer or COVID-19 research was also examined.
METHODS
Participants (N = 40) were recruited via Prolific Academic to take part in semi-structured telephone interviews, with questions focused on data sharing related to either COVID-19 or ovarian/bowel cancer as the proposed health condition to be researched. Content analysis was used to identify sub-themes corresponding to the two a priori themes, attitudes and safeguards.
RESULTS
Participant attitudes were found to fall into two categories, either rational or emotional. Under rational, most participants were in favour of sharing loyalty card data. Support of health research was seen as an important reason to donate such data, with loyalty card logs being considered as already within the public domain. With increased understanding of research purpose, participants expressed higher willingness to donate data. Within the emotional category, participants shared fears about revealing location information and of third parties obtaining their data. With regards to safeguards, participants described the importance of anonymisation and the level of data detail; the control, convenience and choice they desired in sharing data; and the need for transparency and data security. The change in hypothetical purpose of the data sharing, from Covid-19 to cancer research, had no impact on participants' decision to donate, although did affect their understanding of how loyalty card data could be used.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on interviews with the public, this study contributes recommendations for those researchers and the wider policy community seeking to obtain loyalty card data for health research. Whilst participants were largely in favour of donating loyalty card data for academic health research, information, choice and appropriate safeguards are all exposed as prerequisites upon which decisions are made.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35672737
doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00795-8
pii: 10.1186/s12910-022-00795-8
pmc: PMC9171733
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
58Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/T043520/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 20;14(11):e0224240
pubmed: 31747408
Am Psychol. 2018 Feb-Mar;73(2):146-156
pubmed: 29481108
Ethics Behav. 2022;32(1):22-31
pubmed: 35340741
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Jan 25;18(1):4
pubmed: 28122615
Euro Surveill. 2018 Jun;23(24):
pubmed: 29921346
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Jun 16;20(1):109
pubmed: 32546147
JMIR Ment Health. 2018 Aug 29;5(3):e56
pubmed: 30158102
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2018 Apr;23(2):123-133
pubmed: 29653503
Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Dec 3;4:192
pubmed: 32685696
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jun 20;19(1):787
pubmed: 31221122
Nutr J. 2020 Aug 13;19(1):83
pubmed: 32791968
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Apr 05;7(4):e12578
pubmed: 30950799
J Med Ethics. 2022 Jan;48(1):3-13
pubmed: 31719155
Ethics Hum Res. 2020 Mar;42(2):13-27
pubmed: 32233117
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 16;7(1):e11730
pubmed: 30664467
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
Nutrients. 2021 Dec 30;14(1):
pubmed: 35011053
Wellcome Open Res. 2018 Jan 16;3:6
pubmed: 30854470
J Patient Exp. 2020 Dec;7(6):1115-1121
pubmed: 33457553
Digit Health. 2018 Nov 29;4:2055207618816898
pubmed: 30546912
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2019 Jul;2019:6509-6512
pubmed: 31947332
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 19;13(11):e0207523
pubmed: 30452481
J Med Internet Res. 2021 May 17;23(5):e24236
pubmed: 33998998
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2019 Sep 30;11(3):315-326
pubmed: 33717319