Public preference on sharing health data to inform research, health policy and clinical practice in Australia: A stated preference experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate public willingness to share sensitive health information for research, health policy and clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 1,003 Australian respondents answered an online, attribute-driven, survey in which participants were asked to accept or reject hypothetical choice sets based on a willingness to share their health data for research and frontline-medical support as part of an integrated health system. The survey consisted of 5 attributes: Stakeholder access for analysis (Analysing group); Type of information collected; Purpose of data collection; Information governance; and Anticipated benefit; the results of which were analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS: When asked about their preference for sharing their health data, respondents had no preference between data collection for the purposes of clinical practice, health policy or research, with a slight preference for having government organisations manage, govern and curate the integrated datasets from which the analysis was being conducted. The least preferred option was for personal health records to be integrated with insurance records or for their data collected by privately owned corporate organisations. Individuals preferred their data to be analysed by a public healthcare provider or government staff and expressed a dislike for any private company involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that Australian consumers prefer to share their health data when there is government oversight, and have concerns about sharing their anonymised health data for clinical practice, health policy or research purposes unless clarity is provided pertaining to its intended purpose, limitations of use and restrictions to access. Similar findings have been observed in the limited set of existing international studies utilising a stated preference approach. Evident from this study, and supported by national and international research, is that the establishment and preservation of a social license for data linkage in health research will require routine public engagement as a result of continuously evolving technological advancements and fluctuating risk tolerance. Without more work to understand and address stakeholder concerns, consumers risk being reluctant to participate in data-sharing and linkage programmes.

An evaluation framework for comparing geocoding systems.

BACKGROUND: Geocoding, the process of converting textual information describing a location into one or more digital geographic representations, is a routine task performed at large organizations and government agencies across the globe. In a health context, this task is often a fundamental first step performed prior to all operations that take place in a spatially-based health study. As such, the quality of the geocoding system used within these agencies is of paramount concern to the agency (the producer) and researchers or policy-makers who wish to use these data (consumers). However, geocoding systems are continually evolving with new products coming on the market continuously. Agencies must develop and use criteria across a number axes when faced with decisions about building, buying, or maintaining any particular geocoding systems. To date, published criteria have focused on one or more aspects of geocode quality without taking a holistic view of a geocoding system's role within a large organization. The primary purpose of this study is to develop and test an evaluation framework to assist a large organization in determining which geocoding systems will meet its operational needs. METHODS: A geocoding platform evaluation framework is derived through an examination of prior literature on geocoding accuracy. The framework developed extends commonly used geocoding metrics to take into account the specific concerns of large organizations for which geocoding is a fundamental operational capability tightly-knit into its core mission of processing health data records. A case study is performed to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of five geocoding platforms currently available in the Australian geospatial marketplace. RESULTS: The evaluation framework developed in this research is proven successful in differentiating between key capabilities of geocoding systems that are important in the context of a large organization with significant investments in geocoding resources. Results from the proposed methodology highlight important differences across all axes of geocoding system comparisons including spatial data output accuracy, reference data coverage, system flexibility, the potential for tight integration, and the need for specialized staff and/or development time and funding. Such results can empower decisions-makers within large organizations as they make decisions and investments in geocoding systems.