Trust and Health Information Exchanges: Qualitative Analysis of the Intent to Share Personal Health Information.
behavior formation
belief-attitude-intention
consent
data exchange
data sharing
eHealth
health information exchange
privacy
security
sharing personal health information
trust
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 08 2023
30 08 2023
Historique:
received:
03
08
2022
accepted:
31
07
2023
revised:
12
02
2023
medline:
31
8
2023
pubmed:
30
8
2023
entrez:
30
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Digital health has the potential to improve the quality of care, reduce health care costs, and increase patient satisfaction. Patient acceptance and consent are a prerequisite for effective sharing of personal health information (PHI) through health information exchanges (HIEs). Patients need to form and retain trust in the system(s) they use to leverage the full potential of digital health. Germany is at the forefront of approving digital treatment options with cost coverage through statutory health insurance. However, the German population has a high level of technology skepticism and a low level of trust, providing a good basis to illuminate various facets of eHealth trust formation. In a German setting, we aimed to answer the question, How does an individual form a behavioral intent to share PHI with an HIE platform? We discussed trust and informed consent through (1) synthesizing the main influence factor models into a complex model of trust in HIE, (2) providing initial validation of influence factors based on a qualitative study with patient interviews, and (3) developing a model of trust formation for digital health apps. We developed a complex model of the formation of trust and the intent to share PHI. We provided initial validation of the influence factors through 20 qualitative, semistructured interviews in the German health care setting and used a deductive coding approach to analyze the data. We found that German patients show a positive intent to share their PHI with HIEs under certain conditions. These include (perceived) information security and a noncommercial organization as the recipient of the PHI. Technology experience, age, policy and regulation, and a disposition to trust play an important role in an individual's privacy concern, which, combined with social influence, affects trust formation on a cognitive and emotional level. We found a high level of cognitive trust in health care and noncommercial research institutions but distrust in commercial entities. We further found that in-person interactions with physicians increase trust in digital health apps and PHI sharing. Patients' emotional trust depends on disposition and social influences. To form their intent to share, patients undergo a privacy calculus. Hereby, the individual's benefit (eg, convenience), benefits for the individual's own health, and the benefits for public welfare often outweigh the perceived risks of sharing PHI. With the higher demand for timely PHI, HIE providers will need to clearly communicate the benefits of their solutions and their information security measures to health care providers (physicians, nursing and administrative staff) and patients and include them as key partners to increase trust. Offering easy access and educational measures as well as the option for specific consent may increase patients' trust and their intention to share PHI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Digital health has the potential to improve the quality of care, reduce health care costs, and increase patient satisfaction. Patient acceptance and consent are a prerequisite for effective sharing of personal health information (PHI) through health information exchanges (HIEs). Patients need to form and retain trust in the system(s) they use to leverage the full potential of digital health. Germany is at the forefront of approving digital treatment options with cost coverage through statutory health insurance. However, the German population has a high level of technology skepticism and a low level of trust, providing a good basis to illuminate various facets of eHealth trust formation.
OBJECTIVE
In a German setting, we aimed to answer the question, How does an individual form a behavioral intent to share PHI with an HIE platform? We discussed trust and informed consent through (1) synthesizing the main influence factor models into a complex model of trust in HIE, (2) providing initial validation of influence factors based on a qualitative study with patient interviews, and (3) developing a model of trust formation for digital health apps.
METHODS
We developed a complex model of the formation of trust and the intent to share PHI. We provided initial validation of the influence factors through 20 qualitative, semistructured interviews in the German health care setting and used a deductive coding approach to analyze the data.
RESULTS
We found that German patients show a positive intent to share their PHI with HIEs under certain conditions. These include (perceived) information security and a noncommercial organization as the recipient of the PHI. Technology experience, age, policy and regulation, and a disposition to trust play an important role in an individual's privacy concern, which, combined with social influence, affects trust formation on a cognitive and emotional level. We found a high level of cognitive trust in health care and noncommercial research institutions but distrust in commercial entities. We further found that in-person interactions with physicians increase trust in digital health apps and PHI sharing. Patients' emotional trust depends on disposition and social influences. To form their intent to share, patients undergo a privacy calculus. Hereby, the individual's benefit (eg, convenience), benefits for the individual's own health, and the benefits for public welfare often outweigh the perceived risks of sharing PHI.
CONCLUSIONS
With the higher demand for timely PHI, HIE providers will need to clearly communicate the benefits of their solutions and their information security measures to health care providers (physicians, nursing and administrative staff) and patients and include them as key partners to increase trust. Offering easy access and educational measures as well as the option for specific consent may increase patients' trust and their intention to share PHI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37647102
pii: v25i1e41635
doi: 10.2196/41635
pmc: PMC10500360
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e41635Informations de copyright
©Julia Busch-Casler, Marija Radic. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 30.08.2023.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 19;19(6):e218
pubmed: 28630033
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Sep 13;19(9):e169
pubmed: 28903895
JMIR Ment Health. 2019 Nov 13;6(11):e13306
pubmed: 31719029
JMIR Hum Factors. 2022 Sep 7;9(3):e36797
pubmed: 36069794
Ann Fam Med. 2012 Sep-Oct;10(5):428-34
pubmed: 22966106
Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 9;9(1):235
pubmed: 33036664
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Dec 21;20(12):e10954
pubmed: 30578189
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 Jan 24;10(1):e31857
pubmed: 35072646
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
Digit Health. 2022 Dec 6;8:20552076221131142
pubmed: 36506488
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 26;17(9):
pubmed: 32357446
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;257:382-387
pubmed: 30741227
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
Inform Health Soc Care. 2017 Sep;42(3):232-249
pubmed: 27764580
J Glob Health. 2019 Dec;9(2):0204279
pubmed: 31673351
BMJ. 2015 May 07;350:h2146
pubmed: 25952952
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jul 30;23(7):e28496
pubmed: 34328437
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021 Nov 22;7(11):e32951
pubmed: 34813493
J Med Syst. 2016 Jul;40(7):174
pubmed: 27272134
Health Informatics J. 2020 Dec;26(4):2554-2567
pubmed: 32264734
Can Rev Sociol. 2019 Feb;56(1):8-29
pubmed: 30648354
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004 Nov-Dec;11(6):505-13
pubmed: 15299001
Lancet. 2020 Aug 22;396(10250):565-582
pubmed: 32828189
Eur J Hum Genet. 2013 Jan;21(1):14-20
pubmed: 22669414
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 Jan 18;10(1):e27095
pubmed: 35040801
J Med Internet Res. 2009 Aug 06;11(3):e30
pubmed: 19674960
Int J Med Inform. 2019 May;125:1-12
pubmed: 30914173
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 Mar 1;28(3):463-471
pubmed: 33164077
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
J Biomed Inform. 2018 Jul;83:150-158
pubmed: 29894811
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Feb 8;23(2):e25525
pubmed: 33503000
J Med Syst. 2023 Jan 27;47(1):14
pubmed: 36705853
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Nov 23;9(11):e33012
pubmed: 34817385
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Dec 22;19(12):e429
pubmed: 29273574
JMIR Med Inform. 2019 Nov 26;7(4):e14050
pubmed: 31769757
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Mar;48(6):745-55
pubmed: 10190637
J Pers Med. 2022 Apr 19;12(5):
pubmed: 35629080
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Nov 27;21(11):e14537
pubmed: 31774410