The importance of purpose: Moving beyond consent in the societal use of personal health information

David Grande, Nandita Mitra, Anand Shah, Fei Wan, David A. Asch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Adoption of electronic health record systems has increased the availability of patient-level electronic health information. Objective: To examine public support for secondary uses of electronic health information under different consent arrangements. Design: National experimental survey to examine perceptions of uses of electronic health information according to patient consent (obtained vs. not obtained), use (research vs. marketing), and framing of the findings (abstract description without results vs. specific results). Setting: Nationally representative survey. Participants: 3064 African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white persons (response rate, 65%). Measurements: Appropriateness of health information use described in vignettes on a scale of 1 (not at all appropriate) to 10 (very appropriate). Results: Mean ratings ranged from a low of 3.81 for a marketing use when consent was not obtained and specific results were presented to a high of 7.06 for a research use when consent was obtained and specific results were presented. Participants rated scenarios in which consent was obtained as more appropriate than when consent was not obtained (difference, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.34]; P < 0.001). Participants rated scenarios in which the use was marketing as less appropriate than when the use was research (difference, -2.03 [CI, -2.27 to -1.78]; P < 0.001). Unconsented research uses were rated as more appropriate than consented marketing uses (5.65 vs. 4.52; difference, 1.13 [CI, 0.87 to 1.39]). Limitations: Participants rated hypothetical scenarios. Results could be vulnerable to nonresponse bias despite the high response rate. Conclusion: Although approaches to health information sharing emphasize consent, public opinion also emphasizes purpose, which suggests a need to focus more attention on the social value of information use.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)855-862
Number of pages8
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume161
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 16 2014

Fingerprint

Personal Health Records
Marketing
Health
Research
Social Values
Public Opinion
Information Dissemination
Electronic Health Records
Hispanic Americans
African Americans
Health Status
Research Design
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

The importance of purpose : Moving beyond consent in the societal use of personal health information. / Grande, David; Mitra, Nandita; Shah, Anand; Wan, Fei; Asch, David A.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 161, No. 12, 16.12.2014, p. 855-862.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Grande, David ; Mitra, Nandita ; Shah, Anand ; Wan, Fei ; Asch, David A. / The importance of purpose : Moving beyond consent in the societal use of personal health information. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 161, No. 12. pp. 855-862.
@article{f2624eb1b89b48a59d346845195fc90c,
title = "The importance of purpose: Moving beyond consent in the societal use of personal health information",
abstract = "Background: Adoption of electronic health record systems has increased the availability of patient-level electronic health information. Objective: To examine public support for secondary uses of electronic health information under different consent arrangements. Design: National experimental survey to examine perceptions of uses of electronic health information according to patient consent (obtained vs. not obtained), use (research vs. marketing), and framing of the findings (abstract description without results vs. specific results). Setting: Nationally representative survey. Participants: 3064 African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white persons (response rate, 65{\%}). Measurements: Appropriateness of health information use described in vignettes on a scale of 1 (not at all appropriate) to 10 (very appropriate). Results: Mean ratings ranged from a low of 3.81 for a marketing use when consent was not obtained and specific results were presented to a high of 7.06 for a research use when consent was obtained and specific results were presented. Participants rated scenarios in which consent was obtained as more appropriate than when consent was not obtained (difference, 1.01 [95{\%} CI, 0.69 to 1.34]; P < 0.001). Participants rated scenarios in which the use was marketing as less appropriate than when the use was research (difference, -2.03 [CI, -2.27 to -1.78]; P < 0.001). Unconsented research uses were rated as more appropriate than consented marketing uses (5.65 vs. 4.52; difference, 1.13 [CI, 0.87 to 1.39]). Limitations: Participants rated hypothetical scenarios. Results could be vulnerable to nonresponse bias despite the high response rate. Conclusion: Although approaches to health information sharing emphasize consent, public opinion also emphasizes purpose, which suggests a need to focus more attention on the social value of information use.",
author = "David Grande and Nandita Mitra and Anand Shah and Fei Wan and Asch, {David A.}",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
day = "16",
doi = "10.7326/M14-1118",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "161",
pages = "855--862",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The importance of purpose

T2 - Moving beyond consent in the societal use of personal health information

AU - Grande, David

AU - Mitra, Nandita

AU - Shah, Anand

AU - Wan, Fei

AU - Asch, David A.

PY - 2014/12/16

Y1 - 2014/12/16

N2 - Background: Adoption of electronic health record systems has increased the availability of patient-level electronic health information. Objective: To examine public support for secondary uses of electronic health information under different consent arrangements. Design: National experimental survey to examine perceptions of uses of electronic health information according to patient consent (obtained vs. not obtained), use (research vs. marketing), and framing of the findings (abstract description without results vs. specific results). Setting: Nationally representative survey. Participants: 3064 African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white persons (response rate, 65%). Measurements: Appropriateness of health information use described in vignettes on a scale of 1 (not at all appropriate) to 10 (very appropriate). Results: Mean ratings ranged from a low of 3.81 for a marketing use when consent was not obtained and specific results were presented to a high of 7.06 for a research use when consent was obtained and specific results were presented. Participants rated scenarios in which consent was obtained as more appropriate than when consent was not obtained (difference, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.34]; P < 0.001). Participants rated scenarios in which the use was marketing as less appropriate than when the use was research (difference, -2.03 [CI, -2.27 to -1.78]; P < 0.001). Unconsented research uses were rated as more appropriate than consented marketing uses (5.65 vs. 4.52; difference, 1.13 [CI, 0.87 to 1.39]). Limitations: Participants rated hypothetical scenarios. Results could be vulnerable to nonresponse bias despite the high response rate. Conclusion: Although approaches to health information sharing emphasize consent, public opinion also emphasizes purpose, which suggests a need to focus more attention on the social value of information use.

AB - Background: Adoption of electronic health record systems has increased the availability of patient-level electronic health information. Objective: To examine public support for secondary uses of electronic health information under different consent arrangements. Design: National experimental survey to examine perceptions of uses of electronic health information according to patient consent (obtained vs. not obtained), use (research vs. marketing), and framing of the findings (abstract description without results vs. specific results). Setting: Nationally representative survey. Participants: 3064 African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white persons (response rate, 65%). Measurements: Appropriateness of health information use described in vignettes on a scale of 1 (not at all appropriate) to 10 (very appropriate). Results: Mean ratings ranged from a low of 3.81 for a marketing use when consent was not obtained and specific results were presented to a high of 7.06 for a research use when consent was obtained and specific results were presented. Participants rated scenarios in which consent was obtained as more appropriate than when consent was not obtained (difference, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.34]; P < 0.001). Participants rated scenarios in which the use was marketing as less appropriate than when the use was research (difference, -2.03 [CI, -2.27 to -1.78]; P < 0.001). Unconsented research uses were rated as more appropriate than consented marketing uses (5.65 vs. 4.52; difference, 1.13 [CI, 0.87 to 1.39]). Limitations: Participants rated hypothetical scenarios. Results could be vulnerable to nonresponse bias despite the high response rate. Conclusion: Although approaches to health information sharing emphasize consent, public opinion also emphasizes purpose, which suggests a need to focus more attention on the social value of information use.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84919629133&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84919629133&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7326/M14-1118

DO - 10.7326/M14-1118

M3 - Article

C2 - 25506854

AN - SCOPUS:84919629133

VL - 161

SP - 855

EP - 862

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 12

ER -