Strong willingness to give broad consent for secondary data use (93%)16
| 98% considered that the altruistic benefits of sharing healthcare data outweighed the risks14
| ‘Helping my doctor make better decisions about my health’ (94%)28
| Concerns that data could not truly be deidentified32
| If data sharing is motivated by financial gain or profit20
| Significant association between country and attitudes towards data sharing34
| Protection of privacy34
|
Strong approval of abolishing patient consent (76%)16
| Helping future patients (67%)16
| Improving patient care and advancing understanding of treatment risks and side effects20
| Data security risks16 18 20
| If an entity might profit by selling their data20
| Significant association between age and data sharing17
| Studies that offer value and minimise security risks20
|
93% of respondents were willing to share data17
| Returning own benefits from research (72%)16
| Increased chance of receiving personal health information21
| Concerns about misuse of data18
| Lack of transparency and awareness around the use of data, making it difficult to secure public trust22
| No clear relationship was found between data sharing and the number of years diagnosed, sex, medication class or health confidence17
| Researchers protect patients’ privacy and information21
|
Stakeholders were open to data sharing in multicentre studies20
| Improving health outcomes or care20
| | Health data being ‘stolen by hackers’ (87%)28
| | Expressions of trust and attitudes to risk are often affected by the nature of the rare disease a patient has, as well as regulatory and cultural practices in their home country18
| 20% found that participants and their de-identified data may remain linked to allow for return of individual health results and to support further research21
|
Most participants expressed a desire that their data should be available for as many research studies as possible21
| Answering important research questions20
| | Detrimental consequences of data falling into the wrong hands, such as insurance companies22
| | Perceptions of the benefits and value of research increased willingness20
| No consensus among patients on ownership of, access to and usage of their research data17
|
Patients were supportive of sharing their anonymised electronic patient record for research22
| Great hope and trust in the development of this type of research19
| | Perceived possibility that open knowledge could lead to discrimination as having a rare disease was recognised as an inherent vulnerability18
| | Electronic interface system as a means of enabling feedback regarding data recipients and associated research results increased willingness22
| Need for information and transparency on database governance19
|
Participants positively disposed towards research and towards allowing data and biosamples to be shared internationally18
| Support of research in general (86%)16
| | | | Willingness increased if social security number (90%) and insurance ID (82%) were removed from the data for linkage and research use28
| Transparency in conditions framing access to data, all research conducted, partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry19
|
Patients were strongly in favour of sharing data in the context of compiling a European leukodystrophies database19
| | | | | Privacy-protecting methods that share summary-level data (though concerns about increased cost and loss of validity) increased willingness20
| Use of an electronic interface to enable greater control over consent choices22
|
| | | | | Having control over what data are shared and with whom increased willingness 34
| Wanting to know who does research (34%)16
|
| | | | | Willingness increased if patients were able to learn how their data was protected (84%)28
| Wanting to know type of research (37%)16
|
| | | | | | Patients need access to research results19
|
| | | | | | Need for public campaigns to inform stakeholders about Big Data32
|
| | | | | | Central role of clinicians in introducing patients to research32
|