Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Patient and public views about the security and privacy of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in the UK: results from a mixed methods study

Authors: Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Julie E. Reed, Cicely Marston, Ruth Lewis, Azeem Majeed, Derek Bell

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Although policy discourses frame integrated Electronic Health Records (EHRs) as essential for contemporary healthcare systems, increased information sharing often raises concerns among patients and the public. This paper examines patient and public views about the security and privacy of EHRs used for health provision, research and policy in the UK.

Methods

Sequential mixed methods study with a cross-sectional survey (in 2011) followed by focus group discussions (in 2012-2013). Survey participants (N = 5331) were recruited from primary and secondary care settings in West London (UK). Complete data for 2761 (51.8 %) participants were included in the final analysis for this paper. The survey results were discussed in 13 focus groups with people living with a range of different health conditions, and in 4 mixed focus groups with patients, health professionals and researchers (total N = 120). Qualitative data were analysed thematically.

Results

In the survey, 79 % of participants reported that they would worry about the security of their record if this was part of a national EHR system and 71 % thought the National Health Service (NHS) was unable to guarantee EHR safety at the time this work was carried out. Almost half (47 %) responded that EHRs would be less secure compared with the way their health record was held at the time of the survey. Of those who reported being worried about EHR security, many would nevertheless support their development (55 %), while 12 % would not support national EHRs and a sizeable proportion (33 %) were undecided. There were also variations by age, ethnicity and education. In focus group discussions participants weighed up perceived benefits against potential security and privacy threats from wider sharing of information, as well as discussing other perceived risks: commercial exploitation, lack of accountability, data inaccuracies, prejudice and inequalities in health provision.

Conclusions

Patient and public worries about the security risks associated with integrated EHRs highlight the need for intensive public awareness and engagement initiatives, together with the establishment of trustworthy security and privacy mechanisms for health information sharing.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Fernandez-Aleman JL, Senor IC, Lozoya PAO, Toval A. Security and privacy in electronic health records: A systematic literature review. J Biomed Inform. 2013;46(3):541–62.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Rindfleisch TC. Privacy, Information Technology, and Health Care. Commun ACM. 1997;40(8):93–100.CrossRef
4.
Anderson R. Patient confidentiality and central databases. Br J General Practice. 2008;58(547):75–6.CrossRef
5.
6.
Malin BA, Emam KE, O'Keefe CM. Biomedical data privacy: problems, perspectives, and recent advances. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(1):2–6.
7.
Sheather J, Brannan S. Patient confidentiality in a time of care.data. BMJ. 2013;347:f7042.
8.
Anderson R, Brown I, Dowty T, Inglesant P, Heath W, Sasse A. Database State. York: Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust; 2009.
9.
Laurie G, Stevens L, Jones KH, Dobbs C. A Review of Evidence Relating to Harm Resulting from Use of Health and Biomedical Data: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2015.
10.
Department of Health. Information: to share or not to share? The Information Governance Review. 2013.
11.
12.
Malin B, Sweeney L. How (not) to protect genomic data privacy in a distributed network: using trail re-identification to evaluate and design anonymity protection systems. J Biomed Inform. 2004;37(3):179–92.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Brown I, Brown L, Korff D. The limits of anonymisation in NHS data systems. Br Med J. 2011;342:d973.CrossRef
14.
Greenhalgh T, Wood GW, Bratan T, Stramer K, Hinder S. Patients' attitudes to the summary care record and HealthSpace: qualitative study. BMJ. 2008;336(7656):1290–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Luchenski SA, Reed JE, Marston C, Papoutsi C, Majeed A, Bell D. Patient and Public Views on Electronic Health Records and Their Uses in the United Kingdom: Cross-Sectional Survey. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e160.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Wellcome Trust. Summary Report of Qualitative Research into Public Attitudes to Personal Data and Linking Personal Data. London: Wellcome Trust; 2013.
17.
Barrett G, Cassell JA, Peacock JL, Coleman MP. National survey of British public's views on use of identifiable medical data by the National Cancer Registry. BMJ. 2006;332(7549):1068–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Weitzman E, Kelemen S, Kaci L, Mandl K. Willingness to share personal health record data for care improvement and public health: a survey of experienced personal health record users. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12(1):39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Garcia-Sanchez R. The patient’s perspective of computerised records: a questionnaire survey in primary care. Inform Prim Care. 2008;16(2):93–9.PubMed
20.
Ipsos MORI. The Use of Personal Health Information in Medical Research: General Public Consultation Final Report: Medical Research Council; 2007.
21.
Zulman DM, Nazi KM, Turvey CL, Wagner TH, Woods SS, An LC. Patient Interest in Sharing Personal Health Record Information. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(12):805–10.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Whitehead S. Who sees what: Exploring public views on personal electronic health records: New Economics Foundation and the Wellcome Trust; 2010.
23.
Damschroder LJ, Pritts JL, Neblo MA, Kalarickal RJ, Creswell JW, Hayward RA. Patients, privacy and trust: Patients' willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(1):223–35.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Willison DJ, Keshavjee K, Nair K, Goldsmith C, Holbrook AM. Patients’ consent preferences for research uses of information in electronic medical records: interview and survey data. BMJ. 2003;326(7385):373.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Perera G, Holbrook A, Thabane L, Foster G, Willison DJ. Views on health information sharing and privacy from primary care practices using electronic medical records. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(2):94–101.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Pyper C, Amery J, Watson M, Crook C. Access to electronic health records in primary care-a survey of patients’ views. Med Sci Monit. 2004;10(11):17–22.
27.
Baird W, Jackson R, Ford H, Evangelou N, Busby M, Bull P, et al. Holding personal information in a disease-specific register: the perspectives of people with multiple sclerosis and professionals on consent and access. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(2):92–6.
28.
Chhanabhai P, Holt A. Consumers are ready to accept the transition to online and electronic records if they can be assured of the security measures. MedGenMed. 2007;9(1):8.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Ginsburg KR, Slap GB, Cnaan A. Adolescents’ perceptions of factors affecting their decisions to seek health care. J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273:1913–8.CrossRef
30.
Mechanic D, Meyer S. Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(5):657–68.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Ford C, Millstein SG, Halpern-Felsher BL, Irwin CEJ. Influence of physician confidentiality assurances on adolescents' willingness to disclose information and seek future health care: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1997;278(12):1029–34.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Carlisle J, Shickle D, Cork M, McDonagh A. Concerns over confidentiality may deter adolescents from consulting their doctors. A qualitative exploration. J Med Ethics. 2006;32(3):133–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
34.
Agaku IT, Adisa AO, Ayo-Yusuf OA, Connolly GN. Concern about security and privacy, and perceived control over collection and use of health information are related to withholding of health information from healthcare providers. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;21:374–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Braunack-Mayer AJ, Mulligan EC. Sharing patient information between professionals: confidentiality and ethics. Med J Aust. 2003;178(6):277–9.PubMed
36.
Whetten-Goldstein K, Nguyen TQ, Sugarman J. So much for keeping secrets: The importance of considering patients' perspectives on maintaining confidentiality. AIDS Care. 2001;13(4):457–65.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Luchenski S, Balasanthiran A, Marston C, Sasaki K, Majeed A, Bell D, et al. Survey of patient and public perceptions of electronic health records for healthcare, policy and research: Study protocol. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:40.
38.
EKOS Research Associates. Electronic Health Information and Privacy Survey: What Canadians Think: Canada Health Infoway, Health Canada, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada; 2007.
39.
Ipsos Reid. What Canadians Think: Electronic Health Information and Privacy Survey 2012: Canada Health InfoWay; 2012.
40.
Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am J Hum Genet. 2009;85(5):643–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Buckley BS, Murphy AW, MacFarlane AE. Public attitudes to the use in research of personal health information from general practitioners’ records: a survey of the Irish general public. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(1):50–5.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Ancker JS, Silver M, Miller MC, Kaushal R. Consumer experience with and attitudes toward health information technology: a nationwide survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(1):152–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Nissenbaum H. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press; 2010.
44.
Solove DJ. Understanding Privacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2008.
45.
Vasalou A, Gill A, Mazanderani F, Papoutsi C, Joinson A. Privacy Dictionary: A New Resource for the Automated Content Analysis of Privacy. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011;62(11):2095–105.CrossRef
46.
Mazanderani F, Papoutsi C, Brown I. A reflexive analysis of 'context' in privacy research: Two case studies in HIV care. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2013;71(12):1126–32.CrossRef
47.
Whiddett R, Hunter I, Engelbrecht J, Handy J. Patients’ attitudes towards sharing their health information. Int J Med Inform. 2006;75(7):530–41.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Anderson CL, Agarwal R. The Digitization of Healthcare: Boundary Risks, Emotion, and Consumer Willingness to Disclose Personal Health Information. Inform Syst Res. 2011;22(3):469–90.CrossRef
49.
Dinev T, Hart P. An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Inform Syst Res. 2006;17(1):61–80.CrossRef
50.
Laufer RS, Wolfe M. Privacy as a Concept and a Social Issue: A Multidimensional Developmental Theory. J Soc Issues. 1977;33(3):22–42.CrossRef
51.
Caine K, Hanania R. Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(1):7–15.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Department of Health. The power of information: Putting all of us in control of the health and care information we need. London, UK. 2012.
53.
NHS England. Five year forward view. London: HM Government; 2014.
54.
Pulse Today. Second GP decides to opt all patients out of records extraction as care.data rebellion grows. 2013.
55.
Todd R. GP group does care.data campaign. eHealth Insider; 2013.
56.
Illman J. Pioneer database faces delay after watchdog intervenes. Health Service Journal; 2013.
57.
Cavoukian A. Privacy by design: The 7 foundational principles. Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner; 2011.
58.
Claerhout B, DeMoor GJE. Privacy protection for clinical and genomic data. Int J Medical Informatics. 2005;74(2):265.
59.
Dwork C. Differential privacy. In: Van Tilborg HC, Jajodia S, editors. Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 338-340.
60.
61.
Hu J, Weaver AC. A dynamic, context-aware security infrastructure for distributed healthcare applications. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on pervasive privacy security, privacy, and trust. 2004.
62.
Byun J-W, Bertino E, Li N. Purpose based access control of complex data for privacy protection. In: Proceedings of the tenth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies. New York: ACM; 2005. p. 102–10.
63.
Taylor MJ. Health research, data protection and the public interest in notification. Med Law Rev. 2011;19(2):267–303.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Whitley EA, Kanellopoulou N, Kaye J. Consent and research governance in biobanks: evidence from focus groups with medical researchers. Public Health Genomics. 2012;15(5):232–42.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Paine C, Reips U-D, Stieger S, Joinson A, Buchanan T. Internet users’ perceptions of ‘privacy concerns’ and ‘privacy actions’. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2007;65(6):526–36.CrossRef
66.
Patil S, Romero N, Karat J. Privacy and HCI: Methodologies for Studying Privacy Issues. In: CHI'06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Montréal, Québec, Canada. 2006. p. 1719-1722.
Metadata
Title
Patient and public views about the security and privacy of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in the UK: results from a mixed methods study
Authors
Chrysanthi Papoutsi
Julie E. Reed
Cicely Marston
Ruth Lewis
Azeem Majeed
Derek Bell
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0202-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Validity and usability of a professional association’s web-based knowledge translation portal: American Physical Therapy Association’s PTNow.org

Research article

Empowerment of patients in online discussions about medicine use

Research article

Implementation of the Austrian Nursing Minimum Data Set (NMDS-AT): A Feasibility Study

Research article

Physicians’ responses to computerized drug interaction alerts with password overrides

Research article

Measuring patient activation in Italy: Translation, adaptation and validation of the Italian version of the patient activation measure 13 (PAM13-I)

Research article

From prescription drug purchases to drug use periods – a second generation method (PRE2DUP)