Rendina H Jonathon, Mustanski Brian
Department of Psychology, Hunter College, The City University of New York, New York, NY, United States.
Doctoral Program in Health Psychology and Clinical Science, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, New York, NY, United States.
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jul 4;20(7):e233. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9019.
Modern research is heavily reliant on online and mobile technologies, which is particularly true among historically hard-to-reach populations such as gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). Despite this, very little empirical research has been published on participant perspectives about issues such as privacy, trust, and data sharing.
The objective of our study was to analyze data from an online sample of 11,032 GBMSM in the United States to examine their trust in and perspectives on privacy and data sharing within online and mobile research.
Participants were recruited via a social networking site or sexual networking app to complete an anonymous online survey. We conducted a series of repeated measures analyses adjusted for between-person factors to examine within-person differences in the following: (1) trust for guarding personal information across different venues (eg, online research conducted by a university vs. an online search engine); (2) privacy concerns about 12 different types of data for three distinct data activities (ie, collection by app owners, anonymous selling to third parties, and anonymous sharing with researchers); and (3) willingness to share those 12 different types of data with researchers. Due to the large sample size, we primarily reported measures of effect size as evidence of clinical significance.
Online research was rated as most trusted and was more trusted than online and mobile technology companies, such as app owners and search engines, by magnitudes of effect that were moderate-to-large (η=0.06-0.11). Responding about 12 different types of data, participants expressed more concerns about data being anonymously sold to third-party partners (mean 7.6, median 10.0) and fewer concerns about data being collected by the app owners (mean 5.8, median 5.0) or shared anonymously with researchers (mean 4.6, median 3.0); differences were small-to-moderate in size (η=0.01-0.03). Furthermore, participants were most willing to share their public profile information (eg, age) with researchers but least willing to share device usage information (eg, other apps installed); the comparisons were small-to-moderate in size (η=0.03).
Participants reported high levels of trust in online and mobile research, which is noteworthy given recent high-profile cases of corporate and government data security breaches and privacy violations. Researchers and ethical boards should keep up with technological shifts to maintain the ability to guard privacy and confidentiality and maintain trust. There was substantial variability in privacy concerns about and willingness to share different types of data, suggesting the need to gain consent for data sharing on a specific rather than broad basis. Finally, we saw evidence of a privacy paradox, whereby participants expressed privacy concerns about the very types of data-related activities they have likely already permitted through the terms of the apps and sites they use regularly.
现代研究严重依赖在线和移动技术,在男同性恋、双性恋和其他与男性发生性行为的男性(GBMSM)等历来难以接触到的人群中尤其如此。尽管如此,关于参与者对隐私、信任和数据共享等问题的看法的实证研究却很少发表。
我们研究的目的是分析来自美国11,032名GBMSM的在线样本数据,以考察他们对在线和移动研究中的隐私和数据共享的信任及看法。
通过社交网站或性取向社交应用招募参与者来完成一项匿名在线调查。我们进行了一系列针对个体间因素进行调整的重复测量分析,以考察以下方面的个体内差异:(1)对不同场所保护个人信息的信任程度(例如,大学进行的在线研究与在线搜索引擎);(2)对三种不同数据活动的12种不同类型数据的隐私担忧(即应用程序所有者收集、匿名出售给第三方以及匿名与研究人员共享);(3)与研究人员共享这12种不同类型数据的意愿。由于样本量较大,我们主要报告效应量指标作为临床意义的证据。
在线研究被评为最受信任,与应用程序所有者和搜索引擎等在线和移动技术公司相比,其受信任程度有中等到较大的效应量(η=0.06 - 0.11)。在回答12种不同类型的数据时,参与者对数据被匿名出售给第三方合作伙伴表示更多担忧(均值7.6,中位数10.0),而对应用程序所有者收集数据(均值5.8,中位数5.0)或与研究人员匿名共享数据(均值4.6,中位数3.0)的担忧较少;差异大小为小到中等(η=0.01 - 0.03)。此外,参与者最愿意与研究人员分享他们的公开资料信息(例如年龄),但最不愿意分享设备使用信息(例如安装的其他应用程序);比较结果大小为小到中等(η=0.03)。
参与者报告对在线和移动研究有高度信任,鉴于近期企业和政府数据安全漏洞及隐私侵犯的高调案例,这一点值得注意。研究人员和伦理委员会应跟上技术变革,以保持保护隐私和保密性以及维持信任的能力。在对不同类型数据的隐私担忧和共享意愿方面存在很大差异,这表明需要在特定而非广泛的基础上获得数据共享的同意。最后,我们看到了隐私悖论的证据,即参与者对他们可能已经通过定期使用的应用程序和网站的条款允许的与数据相关活动类型表达了隐私担忧。