Patient and public views about the security and privacy of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in the UK: results from a mixed methods study

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Derek Bell⁴  Azeem Majeed⁵  Ruth Lewis¹  Cicely Marston³  Julie E. Reed⁴  Chrysanthi Papoutsi² 

[1] Department of Sociology, University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA, USA;Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK;NIHR CLAHRC Northwest London, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK;Department of Primary Care & Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK

关键词: Electronic health records;    Patient views;    Privacy;    Confidentiality;    Security;    Health information;   

Others  :  1228360
DOI  :  10.1186/s12911-015-0202-2

 received in 2014-10-31, accepted in 2015-09-28,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Although policy discourses frame integrated Electronic Health Records (EHRs) as essential for contemporary healthcare systems, increased information sharing often raises concerns among patients and the public. This paper examines patient and public views about the security and privacy of EHRs used for health provision, research and policy in the UK.

Methods

Sequential mixed methods study with a cross-sectional survey (in 2011) followed by focus group discussions (in 2012-2013). Survey participants (N = 5331) were recruited from primary and secondary care settings in West London (UK). Complete data for 2761 (51.8 %) participants were included in the final analysis for this paper. The survey results were discussed in 13 focus groups with people living with a range of different health conditions, and in 4 mixed focus groups with patients, health professionals and researchers (total N = 120). Qualitative data were analysed thematically.

Results

In the survey, 79 % of participants reported that they would worry about the security of their record if this was part of a national EHR system and 71 % thought the National Health Service (NHS) was unable to guarantee EHR safety at the time this work was carried out. Almost half (47 %) responded that EHRs would be less secure compared with the way their health record was held at the time of the survey. Of those who reported being worried about EHR security, many would nevertheless support their development (55 %), while 12 % would not support national EHRs and a sizeable proportion (33 %) were undecided. There were also variations by age, ethnicity and education. In focus group discussions participants weighed up perceived benefits against potential security and privacy threats from wider sharing of information, as well as discussing other perceived risks: commercial exploitation, lack of accountability, data inaccuracies, prejudice and inequalities in health provision.

Conclusions

Patient and public worries about the security risks associated with integrated EHRs highlight the need for intensive public awareness and engagement initiatives, together with the establishment of trustworthy security and privacy mechanisms for health information sharing.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Papoutsi et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Barrows JRC, Clayton PD. Privacy, confidentiality, and electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1996; 3(2):139-148.
• [2]Fernandez-Aleman JL, Senor IC, Lozoya PAO, Toval A. Security and privacy in electronic health records: A systematic literature review. J Biomed Inform. 2013; 46(3):541-562.
• [3]Rindfleisch TC. Privacy, Information Technology, and Health Care. Commun ACM. 1997; 40(8):93-100.
• [4]Anderson R. Patient confidentiality and central databases. Br J General Practice. 2008; 58(547):75-76.
• [5]Pagliari C, Detmer D, Singleton P. Potential of electronic personal health records. BMJ. 2007; 335(7615):330-333.
• [6]Malin BA, Emam KE, O'Keefe CM. Biomedical data privacy: problems, perspectives, and recent advances. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(1):2–6.
• [7]Sheather J, Brannan S. Patient confidentiality in a time of care.data. BMJ. 2013;347:f7042.
• [8]Anderson R, Brown I, Dowty T, Inglesant P, Heath W, Sasse A. Database State. Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, York; 2009.
• [9]Laurie G, Stevens L, Jones KH, Dobbs C. A Review of Evidence Relating to Harm Resulting from Use of Health and Biomedical Data. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2015.
• [10]Information: to share or not to share? The Information Governance Review. 2013.
• [11]Kaye J. The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2012; 13:415-431.
• [12]Malin B, Sweeney L. How (not) to protect genomic data privacy in a distributed network: using trail re-identification to evaluate and design anonymity protection systems. J Biomed Inform. 2004; 37(3):179-192.
• [13]Brown I, Brown L, Korff D. The limits of anonymisation in NHS data systems. Br Med J. 2011; 342:d973.
• [14]Greenhalgh T, Wood GW, Bratan T, Stramer K, Hinder S. Patients' attitudes to the summary care record and HealthSpace: qualitative study. BMJ. 2008; 336(7656):1290-1295.
• [15]Luchenski SA, Reed JE, Marston C, Papoutsi C, Majeed A, Bell D. Patient and Public Views on Electronic Health Records and Their Uses in the United Kingdom: Cross-Sectional Survey. J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15(8):e160.
• [16]Summary Report of Qualitative Research into Public Attitudes to Personal Data and Linking Personal Data. Wellcome Trust, London; 2013.
• [17]Barrett G, Cassell JA, Peacock JL, Coleman MP. National survey of British public's views on use of identifiable medical data by the National Cancer Registry. BMJ. 2006; 332(7549):1068-1072.
• [18]Weitzman E, Kelemen S, Kaci L, Mandl K. Willingness to share personal health record data for care improvement and public health: a survey of experienced personal health record users. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012; 12(1):39. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Garcia-Sanchez R. The patient’s perspective of computerised records: a questionnaire survey in primary care. Inform Prim Care. 2008; 16(2):93-99.
• [20]The Use of Personal Health Information in Medical Research: General Public Consultation Final Report. Medical Research Council. 2007.
• [21]Zulman DM, Nazi KM, Turvey CL, Wagner TH, Woods SS, An LC. Patient Interest in Sharing Personal Health Record Information. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(12):805-810.
• [22]Whitehead S. Who sees what: Exploring public views on personal electronic health records. New Economics Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. 2010.
• [23]Damschroder LJ, Pritts JL, Neblo MA, Kalarickal RJ, Creswell JW, Hayward RA. Patients, privacy and trust: Patients' willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records. Soc Sci Med. 2007; 64(1):223-235.
• [24]Willison DJ, Keshavjee K, Nair K, Goldsmith C, Holbrook AM. Patients’ consent preferences for research uses of information in electronic medical records: interview and survey data. BMJ. 2003; 326(7385):373.
• [25]Perera G, Holbrook A, Thabane L, Foster G, Willison DJ. Views on health information sharing and privacy from primary care practices using electronic medical records. Int J Med Inform. 2011; 80(2):94-101.
• [26]Pyper C, Amery J, Watson M, Crook C. Access to electronic health records in primary care-a survey of patients’ views. Med Sci Monit. 2004; 10(11):17-22.
• [27]Baird W, Jackson R, Ford H, Evangelou N, Busby M, Bull P, et al. Holding personal information in a disease-specific register: the perspectives of people with multiple sclerosis and professionals on consent and access. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(2):92–6.
• [28]Chhanabhai P, Holt A. Consumers are ready to accept the transition to online and electronic records if they can be assured of the security measures. MedGenMed. 2007; 9(1):8.
• [29]Ginsburg KR, Slap GB, Cnaan A. Adolescents’ perceptions of factors affecting their decisions to seek health care. J Am Med Assoc. 1995; 273:1913-1918.
• [30]Mechanic D, Meyer S. Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness. Soc Sci Med. 2000; 51(5):657-668.
• [31]Ford C, Millstein SG, Halpern-Felsher BL, Irwin CEJ. Influence of physician confidentiality assurances on adolescents' willingness to disclose information and seek future health care: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1997; 278(12):1029-1034.
• [32]Carlisle J, Shickle D, Cork M, McDonagh A. Concerns over confidentiality may deter adolescents from consulting their doctors. A qualitative exploration. J Med Ethics. 2006; 32(3):133-137.
• [33]Sankar P, Mora S, Merz JF, Jones NL. Patient Perspectives of Medical Confidentiality. J Gen Intern Med. 2003; 18(8):659-669.
• [34]Agaku IT, Adisa AO, Ayo-Yusuf OA, Connolly GN. Concern about security and privacy, and perceived control over collection and use of health information are related to withholding of health information from healthcare providers. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 21:374-8.
• [35]Braunack-Mayer AJ, Mulligan EC. Sharing patient information between professionals: confidentiality and ethics. Med J Aust. 2003; 178(6):277-279.
• [36]Whetten-Goldstein K, Nguyen TQ, Sugarman J. So much for keeping secrets: The importance of considering patients' perspectives on maintaining confidentiality. AIDS Care. 2001; 13(4):457-465.
• [37]Luchenski S, Balasanthiran A, Marston C, Sasaki K, Majeed A, Bell D, et al. Survey of patient and public perceptions of electronic health records for healthcare, policy and research: Study protocol. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:40.
• [38]Electronic Health Information and Privacy Survey: What Canadians Think. Canada Health Infoway, Health Canada, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. 2007.
• [39]What Canadians Think: Electronic Health Information and Privacy Survey 2012. Canada Health InfoWay. 2012.
• [40]Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am J Hum Genet. 2009; 85(5):643-654.
• [41]Buckley BS, Murphy AW, MacFarlane AE. Public attitudes to the use in research of personal health information from general practitioners’ records: a survey of the Irish general public. J Med Ethics. 2011; 37(1):50-55.
• [42]Ancker JS, Silver M, Miller MC, Kaushal R. Consumer experience with and attitudes toward health information technology: a nationwide survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 20(1):152-156.
• [43]Nissenbaum H. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California; 2010.
• [44]Solove DJ. Understanding Privacy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge; 2008.
• [45]Vasalou A, Gill A, Mazanderani F, Papoutsi C, Joinson A. Privacy Dictionary: A New Resource for the Automated Content Analysis of Privacy. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011; 62(11):2095-2105.
• [46]Mazanderani F, Papoutsi C, Brown I. A reflexive analysis of 'context' in privacy research: Two case studies in HIV care. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2013; 71(12):1126-1132.
• [47]Whiddett R, Hunter I, Engelbrecht J, Handy J. Patients’ attitudes towards sharing their health information. Int J Med Inform. 2006; 75(7):530-541.
• [48]Anderson CL, Agarwal R. The Digitization of Healthcare: Boundary Risks, Emotion, and Consumer Willingness to Disclose Personal Health Information. Inform Syst Res. 2011; 22(3):469-490.
• [49]Dinev T, Hart P. An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Inform Syst Res. 2006; 17(1):61-80.
• [50]Laufer RS, Wolfe M. Privacy as a Concept and a Social Issue: A Multidimensional Developmental Theory. J Soc Issues. 1977; 33(3):22-42.
• [51]Caine K, Hanania R. Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 20(1):7-15.
• [52]Department of Health. The power of information: Putting all of us in control of the health and care information we need. London, UK. 2012.
• [53]NHS England. Five year forward view. London: HM Government; 2014.
• [54]Pulse Today. Second GP decides to opt all patients out of records extraction as care.data rebellion grows. 2013.
• [55]Todd R. GP group does care.data campaign. eHealth Insider. 2013.
• [56]Illman J. Pioneer database faces delay after watchdog intervenes. Health Service Journal. 2013.
• [57]Cavoukian A. Privacy by design: The 7 foundational principles. Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. 2011.
• [58]Claerhout B, DeMoor GJE. Privacy protection for clinical and genomic data. Int J Medical Informatics. 2005; 74(2):265.
• [59]Dwork C. Differential privacy. In: Van Tilborg HC, Jajodia S, editors. Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 338-340.
• [60]Dwork C, Pottenger R. Toward practicing privacy. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 20(1):102-108.
• [61]Hu J, Weaver AC. A dynamic, context-aware security infrastructure for distributed healthcare applications. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on pervasive privacy security, privacy, and trust. 2004.
• [62]Byun J-W, Bertino E, Li N. Purpose based access control of complex data for privacy protection. In: Proceedings of the tenth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies. New York: ACM; 2005. p. 102–10.
• [63]Taylor MJ. Health research, data protection and the public interest in notification. Med Law Rev. 2011; 19(2):267-303.
• [64]Whitley EA, Kanellopoulou N, Kaye J. Consent and research governance in biobanks: evidence from focus groups with medical researchers. Public Health Genomics. 2012; 15(5):232-242.
• [65]Paine C, Reips U-D, Stieger S, Joinson A, Buchanan T. Internet users’ perceptions of ‘privacy concerns’ and ‘privacy actions’. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2007; 65(6):526-536.
• [66]Patil S, Romero N, Karat J. Privacy and HCI: Methodologies for Studying Privacy Issues. In: CHI'06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Montréal, Québec, Canada. 2006. p. 1719-1722.