Cited by 9Blockchain Technology Applications and SecurityElectronic Health Records SystemsThoreau and American Literature

Examining public views on decentralised health data sharing

Open access
Neumann, Victoria, Davidge, Gail, Harding, Mike, Cunningham, James, Davies, Nigel, Devaney, Sarah, Leeming, Gary, Holm, Søren +1 more·2023·PLOS ONE

Abstract

In recent years, researchers have begun to explore the use of Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT), also known as blockchain, in health data sharing contexts. However, there is a significant lack of research that examines public attitudes towards the use of this technology. In this paper, we begin to address this issue and present results from a series of focus groups which explored public views and concerns about engaging with new models of personal health data sharing in the UK. We found that participants were broadly in favour of a shift towards new decentralised models of data sharing. Retaining ‘proof’ of health information stored about patients and the capacity to provide permanent audit trails, enabled by immutable and transparent properties of DLT, were regarded as particularly valuable for our participants and prospective data custodians. Participants also identified other potential benefits such as supporting people to become more health data literate and enabling patients to make informed decisions about how their data was shared and with whom. However, participants also voiced concerns about the potential to further exacerbate existing health and digital inequalities. Participants were also apprehensive about the removal of intermediaries in the design of personal health informatics systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0282257

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Decentralized data-sharing offers increased privacy and security, improved data ownership and control, and enhanced transparency and accountability.

    “In addition, decentralized data-sharing offers several benefits, such as increased privacy and security, improved data ownership and control, and enhanced transparency and accountability [8].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [41]Soliman J, Kan M. Grounded theory and NVivo: wars and wins. In: International Conference on Qualitative Research in IT & IT in Qualitative Research. QualIT2004; 2004. p. 9.
  2. [43]Jackson O. Is it possible to comply with GDPR using blockchain? International Financial Law Review; London. 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neumann, V., Davidge, G., Harding, M., Cunningham, J., Davies, N., Devaney, S., Leeming, G., Holm, S., & Ainsworth, J.
Affiliations
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Neumann, Victoria
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2023-03-02
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
e0282257
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4322757212
Cited by
9
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/S02770X/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Thoreau and American Literature
Keywords
distributed ledger technology, blockchain, public attitudes, personal health data, audit trail, health data literacy, health disparities, digital inequality, data intermediaries, patient data control, health informatics
MeSH terms
Literacy, Blockchain, Humans, Prospective Studies, Focus Groups, Information Dissemination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review