Author:
Watson Kevin,Payne Dinah M.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to review current practice in sharing and mining medical data revealing benefits, costs and ethical issues. Based on stakeholder perspectives and values, the authors create an ethical code to regulate the sharing and mining of medical information.
Design/methodology/approach
The framework is based on a review of academic, practitioner and legal research.
Findings
Owing to the inability of current safeguards to protect consumers from risks related to the disclosure of medical information, the authors develop a framework for ethical sharing and mining of medical data, security, transparency, respect, accountability, community and quality (STRACQ), which espouses security, transparency, respect, accountability, community and quality as the basic tenets of ethical data sharing and mining practice.
Research limitations/implications
The STRACQ framework is an original, previously unpublished contribution that will require modification over time based on discussion and debate within and among the academy, medical community and public policymakers.
Social implications
The framework for sharing borrows from the Fair Credit Reporting Act, allowing the collection and dissemination of identified medical data but placing strict limitations on use. Following this framework, benefits of shared and mined medical data are freely available with appropriate safeguards for consumer privacy.
Originality/value
Mandates for adoption of electronic health-care records require an understanding of medical data mining. This paper presents a review of data mining techniques and reasons for engaging in the practice of identifying benefits, costs and ethical issues. The authors create an original framework, STRACQ, for ethical sharing and mining of medical information, allowing knowledge exploration while protecting consumer privacy.
Subject
Computer Networks and Communications,Sociology and Political Science,Philosophy,Communication
Reference77 articles.
1. Machine learning and health care disparities in dermatology;JAMA Dermatology,2018
2. American Medical Association (2000), “The domain of health care information privacy”, www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/the-ethical-force-program/privacy-confidentiality/consensus-report.page? (accessed 28 October 2013).
3. American Medical Association (2019), “REPORT 32 OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES (A-19) Impact of High Capital Costs of Hospital EHRs on the Medical Staff”, available at: www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-04/a19-bot32.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
4. Calculating consequences: the utilitarian approach to ethics;Issues in Ethics,1989
5. Adoption of electronic health records in the presence of privacy concerns: the elaboration likelihood model and individual persuasion;MIS Quarterly,2009
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献