Evaluation of patient perception towards dynamic health data sharing using blockchain based digital consent with the Dovetail digital consent application: A cross sectional exploratory study. (May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Despotou, George; Evans, Jill; Nash, William; Eavis, Alexandra; Robbins, Tim; Arvanitis, Theodoros N
• Is Part Of: Digital health. Volume 6(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-05
• Subjects: Blockchain -- digital consent -- dynamic consent -- eHealth -- EHRs; Medical care -- Data processing -- Periodicals; Medical informatics -- Periodicals; 362.10285
• DOI: 10.1177/2055207620924949
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2055-2076

Abstract

Background: New patient-centric integrated care models are enabled by the capability to exchange the patient's data amongst stakeholders, who each specialise in different aspects of the patient's care. This requires a robust, trusted and flexible mechanism for patients to offer consent to share their data. Furthermore, new IT technologies make it easier to give patients more control over their data, including the right to revoke consent. These characteristics challenge the traditional paper-based, single-organisation-led consent process. The Dovetail digital consent application uses a mobile application and blockchain based infrastructure to offer this capability, as part of a pilot allowing patients to have their data shared amongst digital tools, empowering patients to manage their condition within an integrated care setting. Objective: To evaluate patient perceptions towards existing consent processes, and the Dovetail blockchain based digital consent application as a means to manage data sharing in the context of diabetes care. Method: Patients with diabetes at a General Practitioner practice were recruited. Data were collected using focus groups and questionnaires. Thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts and descriptive statistics of the questionnaires was performed. Results: There was a lack of understanding of existing consent processes in place, and many patients did not have any recollection of having previously given consent. The digital consent application received favourable feedback, with patients recognising the value of the capability offered by the application. Patients overwhelmingly favoured the digital consent application over existing practice. Conclusions: Digital consent was received favourably, with patients recognising that it addresses the main limitations of the current process. Feedback on potential improvements was received. Future work includes confirmation of results in a broader demographic sample and across multiple conditions.