Search

BackgroundEvidence suggests that health care data sharing may strengthen care coordination, improve quality and safety, and reduce costs. However, to achieve efficient and meaningful adoption of health care data-sharing initiatives, it is necessary to engage all stakeholders, from health care professionals to patients. Although previous work has assessed health care professionals’ perceptions of data sharing, perspectives of the general public and particularly of seldom heard groups have yet to be fully assessed. ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the views of the public, particularly their hopes and concerns, around health care data sharing. MethodsAn original, immersive public engagement interactive experience was developed—The Can of Worms installation—in which participants were prompted to reflect about data sharing through listening to individual stories around health care data sharing. A multidisciplinary team with expertise in research, public involvement, and human-centered design developed this concept. The installation took place in three separate events between November 2018 and November 2019. A combination of convenience and snowball sampling was used in this study. Participants were asked to fill self-administered feedback cards and to describe their hopes and fears about the meaningful use of data in health care. The transcripts were compiled verbatim and systematically reviewed by four independent reviewers using the thematic analysis method to identify emerging themes. ResultsOur approach exemplifies the potential of using interdisciplinary expertise in research, public involvement, and human-centered design to tell stories, collect perspectives, and spark conversations around complex topics in participatory digital medicine. A total of 352 qualitative feedback cards were collected, each reflecting participants’ hopes and fears for health care data sharing. Thematic analyses identified six themes under hopes: enablement of personal access and ownership, increased interoperability and collaboration, generation of evidence for better and safer care, improved timeliness and efficiency, delivery of more personalized care, and equality. The five main fears identified included inadequate security and exploitation, data inaccuracy, distrust, discrimination and inequality, and less patient-centered care. ConclusionsThis study sheds new light on the main hopes and fears of the public regarding health care data sharing. Importantly, our results highlight novel concerns from the public, particularly in terms of the impact on health disparities, both at international and local levels, and on delivering patient-centered care. Incorporating the knowledge generated and focusing on co-designing solutions to tackle these concerns is critical to engage the public as active contributors and to fully leverage the potential of health care data use.

Background: There is limited evidence of genuine equal partnership where power is shared with young people with mental health difficulties throughout all research stages, particularly in data collection and analysis. Objective: To describe how our qualitative study, exploring young peoples' perceptions on the feasibility of using technology to detect mental health deterioration, was co‐produced using principles of co‐production, whilst reflecting on impact, challenges and recommendations. Methods: Young people with experience of mental health difficulties were appointed and then worked with researchers throughout all research stages. The study was evaluated against the five principles of co‐production. Reflections from researchers and young people were collected throughout. Results: Seven young people formed an initial Young People's Advisory Group (YPAG); three became co‐researchers. Reflection was key throughout the process. Sharing power became easier and more evident as trust, confidence and mutual respect grew over time, particularly after a safe space was established. The safe space was crucial for open discussions, and our WhatsApp group enabled continual communication, support and shared decision‐making. The resulting co‐produced topic guide, coding framework, thematic map, papers and presentations demonstrated significant impact. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative mental health study to be co‐produced using the principles of co‐production. Our rigorous assessment can be utilized as an informative document to help others to produce meaningful co‐produced future research. Although co‐production takes time, it makes significant impact to the research, researchers and co‐researchers. Flexible funding for spontaneous suggestions from co‐researchers and more time for interview training is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study assesses acceptability and usability of home-based self-testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies using lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA). Methods We carried out public involvement and pilot testing in 315 volunteers to improve usability. Feedback was obtained through online discussions, questionnaires, observations, and interviews of people who tried the test at home. This informed the design of a nationally representative survey of adults in England using two LFIAs (LFIA1 and LFIA2) which were sent to 10 600 and 3800 participants, respectively, who provided further feedback. Results Public involvement and pilot testing showed high levels of acceptability, but limitations with the usability of kits. Most people reported completing the test; however, they identified difficulties with practical aspects of the kit, particularly the lancet and pipette, a need for clearer instructions and more guidance on interpretation of results. In the national study, 99.3% (8693/8754) of LFIA1 and 98.4% (2911/2957) of LFIA2 respondents attempted the test and 97.5% and 97.8% of respondents completed it, respectively. Most found the instructions easy to understand, but some reported difficulties using the pipette (LFIA1: 17.7%) and applying the blood drop to the cassette (LFIA2: 31.3%). Most respondents obtained a valid result (LFIA1: 91.5%; LFIA2: 94.4%). Overall there was substantial concordance between participant and clinician interpreted results (kappa: LFIA1 0.72; LFIA2 0.89). Conclusions Impactful public involvement is feasible in a rapid response setting. Home self-testing with LFIAs can be used with a high degree of acceptability and usability by adults, making them a good option for use in seroprevalence surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]