Health Data Sharing Perspectives of Patients Receiving Care in CancerLinQ-Participating Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: CancerLinQ seeks to use data sharing technology to improve quality of care, improve health outcomes, and advance evidence-based research. Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients is vital to ensure its trustworthiness and success. METHODS: In a survey of 1,200 patients receiving care in four CancerLinQ-participating practices, we evaluated awareness and attitudes regarding participation in data sharing. RESULTS: Of 684 surveys received (response rate 57%), 678 confirmed cancer diagnosis and constituted the analytic sample; 54% were female, and 70% were 60 years and older; 84% were White. Half (52%) were aware of the existence of nationwide databases focused on patients with cancer before the survey. A minority (27%) indicated that their doctors or staff had informed them about such databases, 61% of whom indicated that doctors or staff had explained how to opt out of data sharing. Members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be comfortable with research (88% v 95%; P = .002) or quality improvement uses (91% v 95%; P = .03) of shared data. Most respondents desired to know how their health information was used (70%), especially those of minority race/ethnicity (78% v 67% of non-Hispanic White respondents; P = .01). Under half (45%) felt that electronic health information was sufficiently protected by current law, and most (74%) favored an official body for data governance and oversight with representation of patients (72%) and physicians (94%). Minority race/ethnicity was associated with increased concern about data sharing (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; P < .001). Women were less concerned about data sharing than men (OR, 0.61; P = .001), and higher trust in oncologist was negatively associated with concern (OR, 0.75; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Engaging patients and respecting their perspectives is essential as systems like CancerLinQ evolve.

Women's Birth Beliefs During Pregnancy and Postpartum in the Netherlands: A Quantitative Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Women and care providers increasingly regard childbirth as a medical process, resulting in high use of medical interventions, which could negatively affect a woman's childbirth experience. Women's birth beliefs may be key to understanding the decisions they make and the acceptance of medical interventions in childbirth. In this study we explore women's beliefs about birth as a natural and medical process and the factors that are associated with women's birth beliefs. METHODS: Data were obtained from a cross-sectional survey of women living in the Netherlands asking them about their experiences during pregnancy and childbirth, including their beliefs about birth as a natural and medical process. RESULTS: A total of 3494 women were included in this study. Mean scores of natural birth beliefs ranged between 3.73 and 4.01 points, and medical birth belief scores ranged between 2.92 and 3.12 points. There were significant but very small changes between prenatal and postnatal birth beliefs. Regression analyses showed that (previous) childbirth experiences were the most consistent predictor of women's birth beliefs. DISCUSSION: Women's high scores on natural birth beliefs and lower scores on medical birth beliefs correspond with the philosophy of Dutch perinatal care that considers pregnancy and childbirth to be natural processes. Perinatal care providers must be aware of women's birth beliefs and recognize that they as professionals influence women's birth beliefs. They make an important contribution to women's perinatal experiences, which affects both women's natural and medical birth beliefs.

The natural pattern of birth timing and gestational age in the U.S. compared to England, and the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To examine cross-national differences in gestational age over time in the U.S. and across three wealthy countries in 2020 as well as examine patterns of birth timing by hour of the day in home and spontaneous vaginal hospital births in the three countries. METHODS: We did a comparative cohort analysis with data on gestational age and the timing of birth from the United States, England and the Netherlands, comparing hospital and home births. For overall gestational age comparisons, we drew on national birth cohorts from the U.S. (1990, 2014 & 2020), the Netherlands (2014 & 2020) and England (2020). Birth timing data was drawn from national data from the U.S. (2014 & 2020), the Netherlands (2014) and from a large representative sample from England (2008-10). We compared timing of births by hour of the day in hospital and home births in all three countries. RESULTS: The U.S. overall mean gestational age distribution, based on last menstrual period, decreased by more than half a week between 1990 (39.1 weeks) and 2020 (38.5 weeks). The 2020 U.S. gestational age distribution (76% births prior to 40 weeks) was distinct from England (60%) and the Netherlands (56%). The gestational age distribution and timing of home births was comparable in the three countries. Home births peaked in early morning between 2:00 am and 5:00 am. In England and the Netherlands, hospital spontaneous vaginal births showed a generally similar timing pattern to home births. In the U.S., the pattern was reversed with a prolonged peak of spontaneous vaginal hospital births between 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest organizational priorities can potentially disturb natural patterns of gestation and birth timing with a potential to improve U.S. perinatal outcomes with organizational models that more closely resemble those of England and the Netherlands.

Policy Preferences Regarding Health Data Sharing Among Patients With Cancer: Public Deliberations.

BACKGROUND: Precision health offers the promise of advancing clinical care in data-driven, evidence-based, and personalized ways. However, complex data sharing infrastructures, for-profit (commercial) and nonprofit partnerships, and systems for data governance have been created with little attention to the values, expectations, and preferences of patients about how they want to be engaged in the sharing and use of their health information. We solicited patient opinions about institutional policy options using public deliberation methods to address this gap. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand the policy preferences of current and former patients with cancer regarding the sharing of health information collected in the contexts of health information exchange and commercial partnerships and to identify the values invoked and perceived risks and benefits of health data sharing considered by the participants when formulating their policy preferences. METHODS: We conducted 2 public deliberations, including predeliberation and postdeliberation surveys, with patients who had a current or former cancer diagnosis (n=61). Following informational presentations, the participants engaged in facilitated small-group deliberations to discuss and rank policy preferences related to health information sharing, such as the use of a patient portal, email or SMS text messaging, signage in health care settings, opting out of commercial data sharing, payment, and preservation of the status quo. The participants ranked their policy preferences individually, as small groups by mutual agreement, and then again individually in the postdeliberation survey. RESULTS: After deliberation, the patient portal was ranked as the most preferred policy choice. The participants ranked no change in status quo as the least preferred policy option by a wide margin. Throughout the study, the participants expressed concerns about transparency and awareness, convenience, and accessibility of information about health data sharing. Concerns about the status quo centered around a lack of transparency, awareness, and control. Specifically, the patients were not aware of how, when, or why their data were being used and wanted more transparency in these regards as well as greater control and autonomy around the use of their health data. The deliberations suggested that patient portals would be a good place to provide additional information about data sharing practices but that over time, notifications should be tailored to patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests the need for increased disclosure of health information sharing practices. Describing health data sharing practices through patient portals or other mechanisms personalized to patient preferences would minimize the concerns expressed by patients about the extent of data sharing that occurs without their knowledge. Future research and policies should identify ways to increase patient control over health data sharing without reducing the societal benefits of data sharing.

"Extremely slow and capricious": A qualitative exploration of genetic researcher priorities in selecting shared data resources.

PURPOSE: Genetic researchers' selection of a database can have scientific, regulatory, and ethical implications. It is important to understand what is driving database selection such that database stewards can be responsive to user needs while balancing the interests of communities in equitably benefiting from advances. METHODS: We conducted 23 semistructured interviews with US academic genetic researchers working with private, government, and collaboratory data stewards to explore factors that they consider when selecting a genetic database. RESULTS: Interviewees used existing databases to avoid burdens of primary data collection, which was described as expensive and time-consuming. They highlighted ease of access as the most important selection factor, integrating concepts of familiarity and efficiency. Data features, such as size and available phenotype, were also important. Demographic diversity was not originally cited by any interviewee as a pivotal factor; when probed, most stated that the option to consider diversity in database selection was limited. Database features, including integrity, harmonization, and storage were also described as key components of efficient use. CONCLUSION: There is a growing market and competition between genetic data stewards. Data need to be accessible, harmonized, and administratively supported for their existence to be translated into use and, in turn, result in scientific advancements across diverse communities.

Women's decision-making autonomy in Dutch maternity care.

BACKGROUND: A positive childbirth experience is an important outcome of maternity care. A significant component of a positive birth experience is the ability to exercise autonomy in decision-making. In this study, we explore women's reports of their autonomy during conversations about their care with maternity care practitioners during pregnancy and childbirth. METHOD: Data were obtained from a cross-sectional survey of women living in The Netherlands that asked about their experiences during pregnancy and childbirth, including their role in conversations concerning decisions about their care. RESULTS: A total of 3494 women were included in this study. Most women scored high on autonomy in decision-making conversations. During the latter stage of pregnancy (32+ weeks) and in childbirth, women reported significantly lower levels of autonomy in their care conversations with obstetricians as compared with midwives. Linear regression analyses showed that women's perception of personal treatment increased women's reported autonomy in their conversations with both midwives and obstetricians. Almost half (49.1%) of the women who had at least one intervention during birth reported pressure to accept or submit to that intervention. This was indicated by 48.3% of women with induced labor, 47.3% who had an instrumental vaginal birth, 45.2% whose labor was augmented, and 41.9% of women who had a cesarean birth. CONCLUSIONS: In general, women's sense of autonomy in decision-making conversations during prenatal care and birth is high, but there is room for improvement, and this appeared most notably in conversations with obstetricians. Women's sense of autonomy can be enhanced with personal treatment, including shared decision-making and the avoidance of pressuring women to accept interventions.

Negotiating Awareness: Dutch Midwives' Experiences of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening Counseling.

BACKGROUND: Discussion of the topic of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) has become a standard part of Dutch maternity care practice. This means that pregnant women who are contemplating NIPS can receive counseling from their midwife or obstetrician. The aim of this study is to understand the communicative practices and decision-making principles regarding first-tier use of NIPS, as experienced by Dutch midwives. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with Dutch midwives (n = 10) exploring their conversations about NIPS counseling and decision making. RESULTS: Midwives value the autonomy of women in decisions on NIPS. They consider it a midwifery task to assess women's awareness of the risks and implications of using or not using this mode of screening. The optimal level of awareness may differ between women and midwives, creating novel challenges for informed decision making in midwifery communication. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Negotiating awareness about NIPS in individual women is a relatively new and complex midwifery task in need of counseling time and skill. NIPS practices call for a reflection on midwifery values in the context of integrated maternity care.

Public Deliberation Process on Patient Perspectives on Health Information Sharing: Evaluative Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Precision oncology is one of the fastest-developing domains of personalized medicine and is one of many data-intensive fields. Policy for health information sharing that is informed by patient perspectives can help organizations align practice with patient preferences and expectations, but many patients are largely unaware of the complexities of how and why clinical health information is shared. OBJECTIVE: This paper evaluates the process of public deliberation as an approach to understanding the values and preferences of current and former patients with cancer regarding the use and sharing of health information collected in the context of precision oncology. METHODS: We conducted public deliberations with patients who had a current or former cancer diagnosis. A total of 61 participants attended 1 of 2 deliberative sessions (session 1, n=28; session 2, n=33). Study team experts led two educational plenary sessions, and trained study team members then facilitated discussions with small groups of participants. Participants completed pre- and postdeliberation surveys measuring knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about precision oncology and data sharing. Following informational sessions, participants discussed, ranked, and deliberated two policy-related scenarios in small groups and in a plenary session. In the analysis, we evaluate our process of developing the deliberative sessions, the knowledge gained by participants during the process, and the extent to which participants reasoned with complex information to identify policy preferences. RESULTS: The deliberation process was rated highly by participants. Participants felt they were listened to by their group facilitator, that their opinions were respected by their group, and that the process that led to the group's decision was fair. Participants demonstrated improved knowledge of health data sharing policies between pre- and postdeliberation surveys, especially regarding the roles of physicians and health departments in health information sharing. Qualitative analysis of reasoning revealed that participants recognized complexity, made compromises, and engaged with trade-offs, considering both individual and societal perspectives related to health data sharing. CONCLUSIONS: The deliberative approach can be valuable for soliciting the input of informed patients on complex issues such as health information sharing policy. Participants in our two public deliberations demonstrated that giving patients information about a complex topic like health data sharing and the opportunity to reason with others and discuss the information can help garner important insights into policy preferences and concerns. Data on public preferences, along with the rationale for information sharing, can help inform policy-making processes. Increasing transparency and patient engagement is critical to ensuring that data-driven health care respects patient autonomy and honors patient values and expectations.

The failure of success: four lessons learned in five years of research on research integrity and research assessments.

In the past 5 years, we captured the perspectives from a broad array of research stakeholders to better understand the impact that current approaches to success and research assessment may have on the integrity and the quality of research. Here, we translate our findings in four actions that are urgently needed to foster better research. First, we need to address core research structures to overcome systemic problems of the research enterprise; second, we must realign research assessments to value elements that advance and strengthen science; third, we need to remodel, diversify, and secure research careers; and finally, we need to unite and coordinate efforts for change.

Stakeholders' Experiences of Research Integrity Support in Universities: A Qualitative Study in Three European Countries.

Fostering research integrity (RI) increasingly focuses on normative guidance and supportive measures within institutions. To be successful, the implementation of support should be informed by stakeholders' experiences of RI support. This study aims to explore experiences of RI support in Dutch, Spanish and Croatian universities. In total, 59 stakeholders (Netherlands n = 25, Spain n = 17, Croatia n = 17) participated in 16 focus groups in three European countries. Global themes on RI support experiences were identified by thematic analysis. Themes identified were: 'RI governance and institutional implementation', 'RI roles and structures', 'RI education and supervision', and 'Infrastructure, technology and tools supporting daily practice'. Experiences of support differed between countries in relation to: the efforts to translate norms into practice; the extent to which RI oversight was a responsibility of RE structures, or separate RI structures; and the availability of support close to research practice, such as training, responsible supervision, and adequate tools and infrastructure. The study reinforces the importance of a whole institutional approach to RI, embedded within local jurisdictions, rules, and practices. A whole institutional approach puts the emphasis of responsibility on institutions rather than individual researchers. When such an approach is lacking, some stakeholders look for intervention by authorities, such as funders, outside of the university.

A Tale of Two Bioethics.

Phase 1 drug trials-first-in-human tests of new pharmaceuticals- are necessary for FDA approval, and healthy volunteers are necessary to conduct those trials. Bioethicists are rightly concerned with the morally problematic aspects of these trials: Are risks and benefits balanced? Are would-be volunteers sufficiently informed, and have they given proper consent? But these are not the only, or even the most worrisome, ethical problems with Phase 1 research. In Adverse Events (2020), Jill Fisher looks beyond these ordinary bioethical concerns to the moral complications associated with the motivations of healthy volunteers and the demands of the everyday work of running those trials. Her work is the latest example of a much needed "second bioethics." Unlike the "first bioethics," this approach views health-care institutions from the outside, examining the structural and organizational sources that generate the ethical quandaries bioethicists are called upon to mediate and the ethical problems they often fail to see. Adverse Events makes clear that the moral problems of medicine can only be addressed by supporting bioethics of both types-the first and the second.

Sources of information used by women during pregnancy and the perceived quality.

BACKGROUND: Access to reliable information is critical to women's experience and wellbeing during pregnancy and childbirth. In our information-rich society, women are exposed to a wide range of information sources. The primary objective of this study was to explore women's use of information sources during pregnancy and to examine the perceived usefulness and trustworthiness of these sources. METHOD: A quantitative cross-sectional study of Dutch women's experiences with various information sources during pregnancy, including professional (e.g. healthcare system), and informal sources, divided into conventional (e.g. family or peers) and digital sources (e.g. websites or apps). Exploratory backward stepwise multiple regression was performed to identify associations between the perceived quality of information sources and personal characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 1922 pregnant women were included in this study. The most commonly used information sources were midwives (91.5%), family or friends (79.3%), websites (77.9%), and apps (61%). More than 80% of women found professional information sources trustworthy and useful, while digital sources were perceived as less trustworthy and useful. Personal factors explain only a small part of the variation in the perceived quality of information sources. CONCLUSION: Even though digital sources are perceived as less trustworthy and useful than professional and conventional sources, they are among the most commonly used sources of information for pregnant women. To meet the information needs of the contemporary generation of pregnant women it is essential that professionals help in the development of digital information sources.

Development of a multicomponent implementation strategy to reduce upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk in patients using warfarin and antiplatelet therapy, and protocol for a pragmatic multilevel randomized factorial pilot implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: The concomitant use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications increases the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Two underused evidence-based practices (EBPs) can reduce the risk: de-prescribe unnecessary antiplatelet therapy or initiate a proton pump inhibitor. We describe the development of a multicomponent intervention to increase use of these EBPs in patients treated with warfarin and followed by an anticoagulation monitoring service (AMS), and the design of a pilot pragmatic implementation trial. METHODS: A participatory planning group iteratively used Implementation Mapping and the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to develop implementation strategies and plan the trial. Informed by qualitative interviews with patients and clinicians, we drew on several implementation science theories, as well as self-determination theory, to design interventions. For patients, we developed an activation guide to help patients discuss the EBPs with their clinicians. For clinicians, we developed two electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions: (1) clinician notification (CN) consists of a templated message that identifies a patient as high risk, summarizes the EBPs, and links to a guidance statement on appropriate use of antiplatelet therapy. (2) Clinician notification with nurse facilitation (CN+NF) consists of a similar notification message but includes additional measures by nursing staff to support appropriate and timely decision-making: the nurse performs a chart review to identify any history of vascular disease, embeds indication-specific guidance on antiplatelet therapy in the message, and offers to assist with medication order entry and patient education. We will conduct a pilot factorial cluster- and individual-level randomized controlled trial with a primary objective of evaluating feasibility. Twelve clinicians will be randomized to receive either CN or CN+NF for all their patients managed by the AMS while 50 patients will be individually randomized to receive either the activation guide or usual care. We will explore implementation outcomes using patient and clinician interviews along with EHR review. DISCUSSION: This pilot study will prepare us to conduct a larger optimization study to identify the most potent and resource conscious multicomponent implementation strategy to help AMSs increase the use of best practices for upper GI bleeding risk reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05085405 . Registered on October 19, 2021-retrospectively registered.

Barriers to Guideline-Based Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors to Prevent Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

PURPOSE: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most common serious adverse drug events. Guidelines recommend proton pump inhibitor (PPI) gastroprotection to prevent upper GI bleeding in high-risk patients, but this practice is underused. METHODS: To explore prescribing practices and barriers to the use of PPI gastroprotection, including dynamics within and across specialties, we conducted semistructured interviews with physicians in 4 specialties at a single institution. We performed thematic analysis of barriers, organized around the theoretical domains framework. RESULTS: The sample included 5 primary care physicians (PCPs), 4 cardiologists, 3 gastroenterologists, and 3 vascular surgeons. Most PCPs, gastroenterologists, and vascular surgeons seldom prescribed PPI gastroprotection. Cardiologists varied most in their use of PPI gastroprotection, with some prescribing it consistently and others never. Major barriers related to the following 3 themes: (1) knowledge, (2) decision processes, and (3) professional role. Knowledge of guidelines was greatest among cardiologists and gastroenterologists and low among PCPs and vascular surgeons, and PCPs tended to focus on adverse effects associated with PPIs, which made them reluctant to prescribe them. For cardiologists, prevention of bleeding was usually a priority, but they sometimes deferred prescribing to others. For the other 3 specialties, PPI gastroprotection was a low priority. There was unclear delineation of responsibility for prescribing gastroprotection between specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Major barriers to PPI gastroprotection relate to knowledge, decision processes, and professional role, which operate differentially across specialties. Multicomponent interventions will likely be necessary to improve guideline-based use of PPIs to prevent upper GI bleeding.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

What patients with eosinophilic esophagitis may not share with their providers: a qualitative assessment of online health communities.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) experience their symptoms, receive care, and cope with their disease. Patients commonly seek peer support from online communities, which provide insights on unmet needs and barriers to care. We performed a qualitative analysis of electronic health forums to characterize patient-to-patient conversations about EoE symptoms and the experience of disease. METHODS: We identified three publicly accessible electronic health forums hosting EoE communities. Conversation threads posted between July 2018 and June 2020 were coded using emergent and a priori codes based on the THRIVE conceptual framework of coping with chronic illness. RESULTS: Of 659 threads (4,933 posts) collected over two years, a random sample of 240 threads (30 per 3-month quarter) were selected for analysis. Thematic saturation was reached after 172 threads. Patient experience of EoE was driven by their perspectives in four key domains: (i) perception of EoE as episodic rather than chronic, (ii) treatment choices, (iii) personal definitions of success in the disease, and (iv) views of providers. CONCLUSION: Online health communities are a valuable and unfiltered source of patient perspectives that can be used to understand patient needs and goals. EoE patients interpret their disease as sporadic events and lack reliable sources of knowledge, which may influence how patients prioritize treatment. If providers are to succeed in providing high-quality EoE care, they need to equip themselves with evidence-based knowledge, engage in shared decision making, and look outside of clinical settings to recognize barriers to disease management.

"I'm Being Forced to Make Decisions I Have Never Had to Make Before": Oncologists' Experiences of Caring for Seriously Ill Persons With Poor Prognoses and the Dilemmas Created by COVID-19.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has created a new set of problems for clinicians. This study examines the experiences of oncologists providing care to seriously ill persons near the end of life in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Between January 2020 and August 2020, we conducted semistructured, in-depth individual interviews with 22 purposefully sampled oncologists from practices enrolled in the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium. Deidentified transcripts of the interviews were examined using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our respondents described several novel problems created by the COVID-19 pandemic, including: (1) ethical challenges, (2) the need to manage uncertainty-physically and emotionally-on the part of both patients and oncologists, and (3) the difficulty of integrating technology and communication for seriously ill persons. These problems were made more complex by features of the pandemic: resource scarcity (and the need to fairly allocate poor resources), delays in care, high levels of fear, and the increased importance of advance care planning. Nonabandonment served as a way to cope with increased stress, and the use of telemedicine became an increasingly important medium of communication. CONCLUSION: This study offers an in-depth exploration of the problems faced by oncologists as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and how they navigated them. Optimal decision making for seriously ill persons with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic must include open acknowledgment of the ethical challenges involved, the emotions experienced by both patients and their oncologists, and the urgent need to integrate technology with compassionate communication in determining patient preferences.

Taking the burden off: a study of the quality of ethics consultation in the time of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The quality of ethics consults is notoriously difficult to measure. Survey-based assessments cannot capture nuances of consultations. To address this gap, we conducted interviews with health professionals who requested ethics consults during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Healthcare professionals requesting ethics consultation between March 2020 and May 2020 at a tertiary academic medical centre were eligible to participate. We asked participants to comment on the consults they called and thematically analysed responses to identify features associated with optimal quality consultations. RESULTS: Of 14 healthcare providers, 8 (57%) were women and professions were as follows: 11 (79%) medical doctors, 1 (7%) social worker, 1 (7%) physician assistant and 1 (7%) nurse practitioner. Two aspects of quality emerged: satisfaction and value. Themes within the domain of satisfaction included: responsiveness of the ethics consultant, willingness to consult, institutional role of the ethics service and identifying areas for improvement. When describing value, respondents spoke of the intrapersonal and interpersonal worth of consultation. CONCLUSION: Participants were generally satisfied with ethics consultation services, similar to opinions of those found in pre-COVID-19 survey studies. Our qualitative approach allowed for a richer exploration of the value of ethics consultation during the pandemic and has implications for ethics consultation services more broadly. Ethics consultation-emphasising both the process and outcome-created valuable moral spaces, promoting thoughtful and ethical responses to dilemmas in patient care. Future assessments should incorporate patient and family/surrogate perspectives and explore the domain of education as an additional quality measure.

Patient Experiences, Trust, and Preferences for Health Data Sharing.

PURPOSE: Scholars have examined patients' attitudes toward secondary use of routinely collected clinical data for research and quality improvement. Evidence suggests that trust in health care organizations and physicians is critical. Less is known about experiences that shape trust and how they influence data sharing preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To explore learning health care system (LHS) ethics, democratic deliberations were hosted from June 2017 to May 2018. A total of 217 patients with cancer participated in facilitated group discussion. Transcripts were coded independently. Finalized codes were organized into themes using interpretive description and thematic analysis. Two previous analyses reported on patient preferences for consent and data use; this final analysis focuses on the influence of personal lived experiences of the health care system, including interactions with providers and insurers, on trust and preferences for data sharing. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified four domains of patients' lived experiences raised in the context of the policy discussions: (1) the quality of care received, (2) the impact of health care costs, (3) the transparency and communication displayed by a provider or an insurer to the patient, and (4) the extent to which care coordination was hindered or facilitated by the interchange between a provider and an insurer. Patients discussed their trust in health care decision makers and their opinions about LHS data sharing. CONCLUSION: Additional resources, infrastructure, regulations, and practice innovations are needed to improve patients' experiences with and trust in the health care system. Those who seek to build LHSs may also need to consider improvement in other aspects of care delivery.