Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-10
‘As Long as It's Used for Beneficial Things’: An Investigation of non-Māori,Māori and Young People's Perceptions Regarding the Research use of the Aotearoa New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI)
The Aotearoa New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) is a national database containing a wide range of data about people and households. There is limited information about public views regarding its use for research.
A qualitative study was undertaken to examine the views of forty individuals attending a large hospital in Auckland, including those of Māori ethnicity and young people. Semi-structured interview data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's method of thematic analysis.
Seven key themes emerged: 1) Limited knowledge about medical data held in national databases; 2) Conditional support for the use of the IDI, including for research; 3) Concerns regarding the misuse of IDI data; 4) The importance of privacy; 5) Different views regarding consent for use of data for research; 6) Desire for access to personal data and the results of research; and 7) Concerns regarding third party and commercial use. Young people and those of Māori ethnicity were more wary of data misuse than others.
Although there is reasonable support for the secondary use of public administrative data in the IDI for research, there is more work to be done to ensure ethical and culturally appropriate use of this data via improved consent privacy management processes and researcher training.
AitkenM.Cunningham-BurleyS.PagliariC. (2016). Moving from trust to trustworthiness: experiences of public engagement in the Scottish health informatics programme. Science and Public Policy, 43(5), 713–723. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv075
2.
AitkenM.JorreJ. d. S., PagliariC., JepsonR., & Cunningham-BurleyS. (2016). Public responses to the sharing and linkage of health data for research purposes: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0153-x
3.
AsaiA.OhnishiM.NishigakiE.SekimotoM.FukuharaS.FukuiT. (2002). Attitudes of the Japanese public and doctors towards use of archived information and samples without informed consent: preliminary findings based on focus group interviews. BMC Medical Ethics, 3(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-3-1
4.
AtkinsonJ.BlakelyT. (2017). New Zealand’s Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI): Value to date and future opportunities: IJPDS (2017) Issue 1, Vol 1: 105, Proceedings of the IPDLN Conference (August 2016). International Journal of Population Data Science, 1(1).
AvramR.Marquis-GravelG.SimardF.PachecoC.CoutureÉ.Tremblay-GravelM.SimardF.PachecoC.CoutureE.Tremblay-GravelM.MalhameI.BibasL.MansourS.ParentM.FarandP.HarveyL.LessardM-G.LyH.LiuG. … Jolicouer, M. (2018). Understanding the patient perspective on research access to national health records databases for conduct of randomized registry trials. International Journal Of Cardiology, 262, 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.12.074
7.
BellE. A.Ohno-MachadoL.& GrandoM. A., (2014). Sharing my health data: A survey of data sharing preferences of healthy individuals. Paper presented at the AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings.
8.
BondC. S.AhmedO. H.HindM.ThomasB.Hewitt-TaylorJ. (2013). The conceptual and practical ethical dilemmas of using health discussion board posts as research data. Journal Of Medical Internet Research, 15(6), e112. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2435
9.
BowdenN.GibbS.ThabrewH.AudasR.CampJ.TaylorB.HetrickS. (2019). IDI Trends in antidepressant dispensing to New Zealand children and young people between 2007/08 and 2015/16. NZ Med J, 132(1505), 48–61.
10.
BowdenN.GibbS.ThabrewH.KokauaJ.AudasR.MerryS.TaylorB.HetrickS. E. (2020). Case identification of mental health and related problems in children and young people using the New Zealand integrated data infrastructure. BMC Medical Informatics And Decision Making, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-1057-8
11.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2016). (Mis) conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with fugard and potts’(2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. International Journal Of Social Research Methodology, 19(6), 739–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1195588
12.
BuckleyB. S.MurphyA. W.MacFarlaneA. E. (2011). Public attitudes to the use in research of personal health information from general practitioners’ records: A survey of the Irish general public. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(1), 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.037903
13.
CaulfieldT.RachulC.NelsonE. (2012). Biobanking, consent, and control: A survey of albertans on key research ethics issues. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 10(5), 433–438. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2012.0029
14.
CharaniaN. A.PaynterJ.LeeA. C.WatsonD. G.TurnerN. M. (2018). Exploring immunisation inequities among migrant and refugee children in New Zealand. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 14(12), 3026–3033. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2018.1496769
ClerkinP.BuckleyB.MurphyA.MacFarlaneA. (2013). Patients’ views about the use of their personal information from general practice medical records in health research: A qualitative study in Ireland. Family Practice, 30(1), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cms036
17.
CullenR.ReillyP. (2008). Information privacy and trust in government: A citizen-based perspective from New Zealand. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 4(3), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680801915066
18.
CustersB.UršičH. (2016). Big data and data reuse: A taxonomy of data reuse for balancing big data benefits and personal data protection. International Data Privacy Law, 6(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipv028
19.
DamschroderL. J.PrittsJ. L.NebloM. A.KalarickalR. J.CreswellJ. W.HaywardR. A. (2007). Patients, privacy and trust: Patients’ willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records. Social Science & Medicine, 64(1), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.045
DavidsonS.McLeanC.TreanorS.AitkenM.Cunningham-BurleyS.LaurieGPagliariC., SethiN. (2013). Public acceptability of data sharing between the public, private and third sectors for research purposes. Scottish Government
22.
DoreyC. M.BaumannH.Biller-AndornoN. (2018). Patient data and patient rights: Swiss healthcare stakeholders’ ethical awareness regarding large patient data sets–a qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics, 19(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0242-5
23.
FryC. L.SpriggsM.ArnoldM.PearceC. (2014). Unresolved ethical challenges for the Australian personally controlled electronic health record (PCEHR) system: Key informant interview findings. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 5(4), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2014.919972
24.
GrandeD.MitraN.ShahA.WanF.AschD. A. (2013). Public preferences about secondary uses of electronic health information. JAMA internal Medicine, 173(19), 1798–1806. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9166
25.
GrandeD.MitraN.ShahA.WanF.AschD. A. (2014). The importance of purpose: Moving beyond consent in the societal use of personal health information. Annals Of Internal Medicine, 161(12), 855–862. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1118
26.
GrantA.UreJ.NicolsonD. J.HanleyJ.SheikhA.McKinstryB.SullivanF. (2013). Acceptability and perceived barriers and facilitators to creating a national research register to enable’direct to patient’enrolment into research: The Scottish health research register (SHARE). BMC Health Services Research, 13(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-422
27.
GulliverP.JonasM.McIntoshT.FanslowJ.WaayerD. (2018). Qualitative research: surveys, social licence and the integrated data infrastructure. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 30(3), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol30iss3id481
28.
HaddowG.BruceA.SathanandamS.WyattJ. C. (2011). ‘Nothing is really safe’: A focus group study on the processes of anonymizing and sharing of health data for research purposes. Journal Of Evaluation In Clinical Practice, 17(6), 1140–1146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01488.x
29.
HateK.MeherallyS.Shah MoreN.JayaramanA.BullS.ParkerM.OsrinD. (2015). Sweat, skepticism, and uncharted territory: A qualitative study of opinions on data sharing among public health researchers and research participants in mumbai, India. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(3), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615592383
30.
HillE. M.TurnerE. L.MartinR. M.DonovanJ. L. (2013). “Let’s get the best quality research we can”: Public awareness and acceptance of consent to use existing data in health research: A systematic review and qualitative study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-1
31.
HudsonM.AndersonT.DewesT.TemaraP.WhaangaH.RoaT. (2016). Tribal data sovereignty: whakatōhea rights and interests. In KukutaiT. J. (Ed.), Indigenous data sovereignty: toward an agenda (pp. 157–178): ANU Press.
32.
HudsonM.AndersonT.DewesT.WhaangaH.RoaT. (2017). Conceptualising big data through a māori lens. In: He whare hangarau māori — language, culture & technology. (pp. 64–73): ANU Press.
33.
JagsiR.GriffithK. A.SabolchA.JonesR.SpenceR.De VriesR.GrandeD.BradburyA. R. (2017). Perspectives of patients with cancer on the ethics of rapid-learning health systems. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 35(20), 2315. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.72.0284
34.
KimK. K.JosephJ. G.Ohno-MachadoL. (2015). Comparison of consumers’ views on electronic data sharing for healthcare and research. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 22(4), 821–830. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv014
35.
KingT.BrankovicL.GillardP. (2012). Perspectives of Australian adults about protecting the privacy of their health information in statistical databases. International Journal Of Medical Informatics, 81(4), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.01.005
36.
KokauaJ.JensenS.RuheT.CampJ.JensenW.SorensenD., … RichardsR. (2020). An application of a tivaivai research framework to a quantitative pacific health research project using New Zealand’s integrated data infrastructure: tivaivai framework for quantitative pacific research. Pacific Health Dialog, 21(5), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.26635/phd.2020.621
37.
KukutaiT.CarollS.WalterM. (2020). Indigenous data sovereignty. IWGIA.
38.
KukutaiT.TaylorJ. (2016). Indigenous data sovereignty. ANU press.
39.
LehnbomE.BrienJ.McLachlanA. (2014). Knowledge and attitudes regarding the personally controlled electronic health record: An Australian national survey. Internal Medicine Journal, 44(4), 406–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.12384
40.
LencaM.FerrettiA.HurstS.PuhanM.LovisC.VayenaE. (2018). Considerations from ethics review of big data health research: A scoping review. PLoS one, 13(10), e020493. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204937
41.
LuceroR. J.KearneyJ.CortesY.ArciaA.AppelbaumP.FernándezR. L.LuchsingerJ. (2015). Benefits and risks in secondary use of digitized clinical data: Views of community members living in a predominantly ethnic minority urban neighborhood. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 6(2), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2014.949906
42.
McLeodK.TempletonR.BallC.TumenS.CrichtonS.DixonS. (2015). Using Integrated Administrative Data to Identify Youth Who Are at Risk of Poor Outcomes as Adults. Retrieved from
43.
MilbergS. J.BurkeS. J.SmithH. J.KallmanE. A. (1995). Values, personal information privacy, and regulatory approaches. Communications of the ACM, 38(12), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1145/219663.219683
44.
MilneB. J.AtkinsonJ.BlakelyT.DayH.DouwesJ.GibbSNicholsonM.ShackletonN.SporleA.TengA. (2019). Data resource profile: The New Zealand integrated data infrastructure (IDI). International Journal of Epidemiology, 48(3), 677–677e. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz014
45.
MourbyM.MackeyE.ElliotM.GowansH.WallaceS. E.BellJ.SmithH.AidinlisS.KayeJ. (2018). Are ‘pseudonymised’data always personal data? Implications of the GDPR for administrative data research in the UK. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.01.002
46.
PalmerM. S. (2008). The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s law and constitution.
47.
ParkinL.PaulC. (2011). Public good, personal privacy: A citizens’ deliberation about using medical information for pharmacoepidemiological research. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 65(2), 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2009.097436
48.
RiordanF.PapoutsiC.ReedJ. E.MarstonC.BellD.MajeedA. (2015). Patient and public attitudes towards informed consent models and levels of awareness of electronic health records in the UK. International Journal Of Medical Informatics, 84(4), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.01.008
49.
RobertsonA. R.SmithP.SoodH.CresswellK.NurmatovU.SheikhA. (2016). Tightrope walking towards maximising secondary uses of digitised health data: A qualitative study. Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics, 23(3), 591–599. https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v23i3.847
50.
RubinsteinI. (2013). Big data: The end of privacy or a new beginning?International Data Privacy Law, 3(2), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ips036
51.
SaitoK.ShoferF. S.SaberiP.Green-McKenzieJ. (2017). Health care personnel perception of the privacy of electronic health records. Journal of Occupational And Environmental Medicine, 59(6), 535–538. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001016
52.
ShackletonN.BroadbentJ. M.ThornleyS.MilneB. J.CrengleS.ExeterD. J. (2018). Inequalities in dental caries experience among 4-year-old New Zealand children. Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology, 46(3), 288–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12364
53.
ShackletonN.MilneB.AudasR.DerraikJ. G.ZhuT.TaylorR.MortonS. M. B.GloverM.CutfieldW. S.TaylorB. (2018). Improving rates of overweight, obesity and extreme obesity in New Zealand 4-year-old children in 2010–2016. Pediatric Obesity, 13(12), 766–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpo.12260
54.
SpencerK.SandersC.WhitleyE. A.LundD.KayeJ.DixonW. G. (2016). Patient perspectives on sharing anonymized personal health data using a digital system for dynamic consent and research feedback: A qualitative study. Journal Of Medical Internet Research, 18(4), e5011. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5011
Statistics New Zealand. (2017b). Privacy impact assessments for the IDI and LBD.
57.
Statistics New Zealand. (2020). Legislation, policies, and protocols.
58.
StoneM. A.RedsellS. A.LingJ. T.HayA. D. (2005). Sharing patient data: Competing demands of privacy, trust and research in primary care. British Journal Of General Practice, 55(519), 783–789.
TullyM. P.BozentkoK.ClementS.HunnA.HassanL.NorrisR.OswaldM.PeekN. (2018). Investigating the extent to which patients should control access to patient records for research: A deliberative process using citizens’ juries. Journal Of Medical Internet Research, 20(3), e7763. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7763
61.
ValentineN.ScampionL.TaylorR. (2020). New Zealand: Significant changes to NZ’s privacy act – but where is the bite?
62.
WalterM.SuinaM. (2019). Indigenous data, indigenous methodologies and indigenous data sovereignty. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(3), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1531228
63.
WhiddettD.HunterI.McDonaldB.NorrisT.WaldonJ. (2016). Consent and widespread access to personal health information for the delivery of care: A large scale telephone survey of consumers’ attitudes using vignettes in New Zealand. BMJ open, 6(8), e011640. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011640
64.
ZarateO. A., BrodyJ. G., BrownP., Ramirez-AndreottaM. D., PerovichL., & MatzJ. (2016). Balancing benefits and risks of immortal data: Participants’ views of open consent in the personal genome project. Hastings Center Report, 46(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.523
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
