2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Building public trust and confidence in secondary use of health data for healthcare improvement and research: a qualitative study pre-protocol

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background 

          Secondary use of health data provides opportunities to drive improvements in healthcare provision, personalised medicine, comparative effectiveness research, health services innovation, and policy and practice. However, secondary data use requires compliance with relevant legislation, implementation of technical safeguards, ethical data management, and respect for data sharers. Existing evidence suggests widespread support for secondary use of health data among the public, which co-exists with concerns about privacy, confidentiality and misuse of data. Balancing the protection of individuals’ rights against the use of their health data for societal benefits is of vital importance, and trust underpins this process. The study protocol explores how to build public trust and confidence in the secondary use of health data through all key stakeholder groups in Ireland, towards developing a culture that promotes a safe and trustworthy use of data.

          Methods 

          This study will adopt a qualitative cross-sectional approach conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research COREQ guidelines. Participants in the study will include academics and researchers; healthcare professionals, data protection, ethics and privacy experts and data controllers; pharmaceutical industry and patients and public. Purposive and convenience sampling techniques will be utilised to recruit the participants, and data will be collected utilizing focus groups that may be supplemented with semi-structured interviews. Data will be coded by themes using reflexive thematic analysis (TA) and collective intelligence (CI) will be convened post-analysis to explore the preliminary findings with the participants.

          Ethics and Dissemination 

          Ethical approval was obtained from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Research Ethics Committee (REC202208013). Final data analysis and dissemination is expected by Q1 2024. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications, presentations at relevant conferences, and other academic, public and policy channels. Lay summaries will be designed for Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) contributors and general public.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

            Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                HRB Open Res
                HRB Open Res
                HRB Open Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2515-4826
                17 June 2024
                2023
                : 6
                : 47
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, D02 DH60, Ireland
                [2 ]Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) FutureNeuro Research Centre, Dublin, D02 YN77, Ireland
                [1 ]Birmingham City University, Birmingham, England, UK
                [1 ]Birmingham City University, Birmingham, England, UK
                School of Population Health, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
                [1 ]School of Nursing and Midwifery, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK
                School of Population Health, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
                Author notes

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5865-0263
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2861-7665
                Article
                10.12688/hrbopenres.13711.2
                11214037
                51845f10-1b07-461f-b869-2dc3ce8b2d5d
                Copyright: © 2024 Bedenik T et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 June 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: IQVIA Solutions Ireland LTD
                Award ID: AgreementNos.16/RC/3948and20/SP/8955
                Funded by: Health Research Board
                Award ID: HRBSDAP2021-20andSDAP2021-020
                Funded by: Science Foundation Ireland
                Award ID: AgreementNos.16/RC/3948and20/SP/8955
                This research was conducted with the financial support of Science Foundation Ireland under Grant Agreement Nos. 16/RC/3948 and 20/SP/8955 at the FutureNeuro SFI Research Centre at the RCSI University of Medicine and Social Sciences. FutureNeuro, the SFI Research Centre for neurological diseases is funded by Science Foundation Ireland through the SFI Research Centres Programme.
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Articles

                qualitative research,health data,secondary use,trust,public and patient involvement,ehealth

                Comments

                Comment on this article