Suchergebnisse

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.

Abstract Background During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, Australian public health officials closed schools as a strategy to mitigate the spread of the infection. This article examines school communities' understanding of, and participation in, school closures and the beliefs and values which underpinned school responses to the closures. Methods We interviewed four school principals, 25 staff, 14 parents and 13 students in five schools in one Australian city which were either fully or partially closed during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Results Drawing on Thompson et al's ethical framework for pandemic planning, we show that considerable variation existed between and within schools in their attention to ethical processes and values. In all schools, health officials and school leaders were strongly committed to providing high quality care for members of the school community. There was variation in the extent to which information was shared openly and transparently, the degree to which school community members considered themselves participants in decision-making, and the responsiveness of decision-makers to the changing situation. Reservations were expressed about the need for closures and quarantine and there was a lack of understanding of the rationale for the closures. All schools displayed a strong duty of care toward those in need, although school communities had a broader view of care than that of the public health officials. Similarly, there was a clear understanding of and commitment to protect the public from harm and to demonstrate responsible stewardship. Conclusions We conclude that school closures during an influenza pandemic represent both a challenge for public health officials and a litmus test for the level of trust in public officials, government and the school as institution. In our study, trust was the foundation upon which effective responses to the school closure were built. Trust relations within the school were the basis on which different values and beliefs were used to develop and justify the practices and strategies in response to the pandemic.

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.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ; Background Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. Design Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. Results CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). Conclusions Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.

Background: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development is increasing. Community/Citizen's Juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection, and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs and develop an initial checklist, and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. Design: Using literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy-advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. Results: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38) while least reported was availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38) however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). Conclusions: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy-making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy-advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardised, systematic and transparent reporting.

BACKGROUND: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. DESIGN: Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. RESULTS: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). CONCLUSIONS: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.

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.