Rudolph Abby E, Young April M, Havens Jennifer R
Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
Department of Epidemiology, University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY 40536, USA; Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY 40536, USA.
Addict Behav. 2017 Nov;74:106-111. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.06.006. Epub 2017 Jun 8.
Analyses that link contextual factors with individual-level data can improve our understanding of the "risk environment"; however, the accuracy of information provided by participants about locations where illegal/stigmatized behaviors occur may be influenced by privacy/confidentiality concerns that may vary by setting and/or data collection approach.
We recruited thirty-five persons who use drugs from a rural Appalachian town and a Mid-Atlantic city to participate in in-depth interviews. Through thematic analyses, we identified and compared privacy/confidentiality concerns associated with two survey methods that (1) collect self-reported addresses/cross-streets and (2) use an interactive web-based map to find/confirm locations in rural and urban settings.
Concerns differed more by setting than between methods. For example, (1) rural participants valued interviewer rapport and protections provided by the Certificate of Confidentiality more; (2) locations considered to be sensitive differed in rural (i.e., others' homes) and urban (i.e., where drugs were used) settings; and (3) urban participants were more likely to view providing cross-streets as an acceptable alternative to providing exact addresses for sensitive locations and to prefer the web-based map approach.
Rural-urban differences in privacy/confidentiality concerns reflect contextual differences (i.e., where drugs are used/purchased, population density, and prior drug-related arrests). Strategies to alleviate concerns include: (1) obtain a Certificate of Confidentiality, (2) collect geographic data at the scale necessary for proposed analyses, and (3) permit participants to provide intersections/landmarks in close proximity to actual locations rather than exact addresses or to skip questions where providing an intersection/landmark would not obfuscate the actual address.
将背景因素与个体层面的数据联系起来的分析可以增进我们对“风险环境”的理解;然而,参与者提供的关于非法/受污名化行为发生地点的信息准确性可能会受到隐私/保密问题的影响,这些问题可能因环境和/或数据收集方法而异。
我们从阿巴拉契亚山区的一个乡村小镇和一个大西洋中部城市招募了35名吸毒者参与深入访谈。通过主题分析,我们识别并比较了与两种调查方法相关的隐私/保密问题,这两种方法分别是:(1)收集自我报告的地址/交叉街道;(2)使用基于网络的交互式地图在农村和城市环境中查找/确认地点。
隐私/保密问题在不同环境中的差异大于不同方法之间的差异。例如,(1)农村参与者更看重访谈者的融洽关系以及保密证书提供的保护;(2)农村(即他人家中)和城市(即吸毒地点)环境中被认为敏感的地点有所不同;(3)城市参与者更有可能认为提供交叉街道是在敏感地点提供确切地址的可接受替代方式,并且更喜欢基于网络地图的方法。
隐私/保密问题在城乡之间的差异反映了背景差异(即毒品使用/购买地点、人口密度以及先前与毒品相关的逮捕情况)。减轻这些担忧的策略包括:(1)获取保密证书;(2)按照拟议分析所需的规模收集地理数据;(3)允许参与者提供靠近实际地点的交叉路口/地标,而不是确切地址,或者在提供交叉路口/地标不会模糊实际地址的情况下跳过相关问题。