Media content analysis of general practitioners’ reactions to care.data expressed in the media: what lessons can be learned for future NHS data-sharing initiatives?

Abstract

ObjectivesCare.data was a 2013 UK government initiative to extract patient data from general practices in England to form a centralised whole-population database for service planning and health research. After a public outcry, the scheme was postponed and cancelled. Public views of care.data have previously been analysed; this study aimed to understand contemporary general practitioners’ (GPs) views of the scheme, which may have been influential in its downfall.DesignSystematic search of media articles, followed by media content analysis.SettingUK-based mainstream and GP-facing media in 2013 and 2014.ParticipantsArticles were eligible if they focused on care.data, and GPs were quoted, authored the article, or if articles were written for a majority GP audience.InterventionsN/A.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThemes which explained GPs' reactions to care.data and which could explain support for or opposition to the scheme.Results162 media articles met inclusion criteria and were drawn from newspapers, news websites and GP-facing websites. GPs recognised care.data’s potential value for research and improving care, but had grave concerns about the scheme’s implementation. These centred the lack of safeguards and purpose around the scheme which meant patients were not able to make informed decisions about opt-out. GPs perceived they were poorly resourced to meet competing demands to both share patients’ data and protect confidentiality. They distrusted the government’s likely uses of the data and perceived a risk of patient reidentification if the data were sold onto commercial entities.ConclusionsFindings show specific concerns which GPs had about care.data which led to the withdrawal of support. Future NHS patient data-sharing schemes should engage with GPs and other clinicians as key stakeholders from the earliest moments of planning, so that their views and needs are incorporated into the design of such schemes.

Considerations for an integrated population health databank in Africa: lessons from global best practices

“…Given the complexity of data ownership, and that many stakeholders can mount logical argument as to ownership, scientists have recommended non-exclusive ownership of data. They submit that data ownership should be governed by legal and moral obligations including trust and custodianship with variations in the right of access and utility by different stakeholders 133 – 135 . They have argued that data ownership should be based on national privacy regulations and permission granted.…”

Public opinion on sharing data from health services for clinical and research purposes without explicit consent: an anonymous online survey in the UK

“…Others have observed larger effects via ‘loss framing’ (emphasising the potential adverse consequences of not consenting over the potential benefits of consenting), and through other manipulations such as the placement of framing statements 70. Media coverage of health data sharing is influential 71 72. Despite best intentions, it is impossible to avoid framing effects entirely,29 so those presenting information should be aware of these while presenting accurately the risks and benefits of data sharing/linkage.…”

CAEHR - Provider Interests in The Secondary Use of Health Data Study Report

“…2). Diese Befunde knüpfen an internationale Erkenntnisse [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] an und ergänzen sie in mehreren Dimensionen. Inhaltlich erweitern unsere Erkenntnisse das Risikospektrum v.a.…”

“…Sorgen bestehen auch vor unberechtigtem Zugriff auf sensible Daten durch Mängel in Datenschutz/-sicherheit [23][24][25] oder der Datennutzung zum primären Ziel von Marketing oder Kostenoptimierung (z.B. Pharmaindustrie, Krankenversicherungen) [22,[25][26][27]. Als Risiken werden zudem fehlerhafte Ergebnisse oder Fehlinterpretation von Sekundärdatenanalysen (z.B.…”