Search results

AbstractChildren in out‐of‐home care may experience multiple losses, from separation from birth parents and siblings to loss of friendships, culture, and sense of belonging and normality. The impacts of these significant losses on a child's development and wellbeing have typically been the subject of childhood trauma research. While understanding the impact is important, children's experiences of the losses and the ways adults can support them to grieve are less explored in research. Recently, out‐of‐home care researchers have begun to address this knowledge gap by applying the concept of ambiguous loss to capture and understand children's grief and loss. This article builds on this work and reports findings of a qualitative study that involved 30 out‐of‐home care practitioners. Constructivist Grounded Theory was applied to analyse the research data which resulted in the HEAR model that outlines the practice components that out‐of‐home care practitioners considered important in effectively responding to children's experience of ambiguous loss. These components are (1) Honouring ambiguous loss; (2) Establishing a care community; (3) Attuning to the lack of finality of ambiguous loss and (4) Reducing ambiguity. This article presents research findings that supported the development of the HEAR model, and discusses its implications for out‐of‐home care practice.

IntroductionLarge volumes of health data are generated through the interaction of individuals with hospitals, government agencies and health care providers. There is potential in the linkage and sharing of administrative data with private industry to support improved drug and device provision but data sharing is highly contentious.
Objectives and ApproachWe conducted a scoping review of quantitative and qualitative studies examining public attitudes towards the sharing of health data, held by government, with private industry for research and development. We searched four data bases, PubMed, Scopus, Cinahl and Web of Science as well as Google Scholar and Google Advanced. The search was confined to English-only publications since January 2014 but was not geographically limited. We thematically coded included papers.
ResultsWe screened 6788 articles. Thirty-six studies were included primarily from UK and North America. No Australian studies were identified. Across studies, willingness to share non-identified data was generally high with the participant's own health provider (84-91%) and academic researchers (64-93%) but fell if the data was to be shared with private industry (14-53%). There was widespread misunderstanding of the benefits of sharing data for health research. Publics expressed concern about a range of issues including data security, misuse of data and use of data to generate profit. Conditions which would increase public confidence in sharing of data included: strict safeguards on data collection and use including secure storage, opt-in or opt-out consent mechanisms, and good communication through trusted agents.
Conclusion / ImplicationsWe identified a research gap: Australian views on sharing government health data with private industry. The international experience suggests that public scepticism about data sharing with private industry will need to be addressed by good communication about public benefit of data sharing, a strong program of public engagement and information sharing conducted through trusted entities.

IntroductionLarge administrative datasets are now being used for secondary purposes across a wide range of public sector organisations, including in health and higher education. However, governance, regulation and policy surrounding the use of these datasets are at different stages of development in these sectors. Our aim was to explore similarities and differences in the use of administrative data between the health and higher education sectors to inform policy development.
Objectives and ApproachWe investigated views on the use of administrative data in both the health and higher education sectors. We conducted 18 qualitative in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, to provide insight into the ethical, social and legal issues associated with the use of big data in these settings. The interviews were transcribed and thematically coded.
ResultsParticipants indicated the rapid pace of technological change and large volume of potentially sensitive data collected raises governance, infrastructure and ethical issues in both settings. Common challenges include communication, staff capabilities, delays in access, multiple policies and governance committees, and technical and operational issues. In the health sector, there was clear understanding of the issues and governance structures to address these issues, whereas this understanding was more variable in the higher education sector. Trust in government (to use responsibly and store securely) was raised in the health sector but not in universities.
Conclusion / ImplicationsUnderstanding and use of administrative data are at quite different levels of development in the higher education and health sectors. Higher education needs policy and ethical guidance and higher level governance and greater consultation across the sector. Both sectors would benefit from a national approach to data governance.

BACKGROUND: There is good evidence of both community support for sharing public sector administrative health data in the public interest and concern about data security, misuse and loss of control over health information, particularly if private sector organizations are the data recipients. To date, there is little research describing the perspectives of informed community members on private sector use of public health data and, particularly, on the conditions under which that use might be justified. METHODS: Two citizens' juries were held in February 2020 in two locations close to Sydney, Australia. Jurors considered the charge: 'Under what circumstances is it permissible for governments to share health data with private industry for research and development?' RESULTS: All jurors, bar one, in principle supported sharing government administrative health data with private industry for research and development. The support was conditional and the juries' recommendations specifying these conditions related closely to the concerns they identified in deliberation. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the deliberative processes suggest that informed Australian citizens are willing to accept sharing their administrative health data, including with private industry, providing the intended purpose is clearly of public benefit, sharing occurs responsibly in a framework of accountability, and the data are securely held. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The design of the jury was guided by an Advisory Group including representatives from a health consumer organization. The jurors themselves were selected to be descriptively representative of their communities and with independent facilitation wrote the recommendations.