Heuristics Identified in Health Data-Sharing Preferences of Patients With Cancer: Qualitative Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND

Evaluating precision oncology outcomes requires access to real-world and clinical trial data. Access is based on consent, and consent is based on patients' informed preferences when deciding to share their data. Decision-making is often modeled using utility theory, but a complex decision context calls for a consideration of how heuristic, intuitive thought processes interact with rational utility maximization. Data-sharing decision-making has been studied using heuristic theory, but almost no heuristic research exists in the health data context. This study explores this evidence gap, applying a qualitative approach to probe for evidence of heuristic mechanisms behind the health data-sharing preferences of those who have experienced cancer. Exploring qualitative decision-making reveals the types of heuristics used and how they are related to the process of decision-making to better understand whether consent mechanisms should consider nonrational processes to better serve patient decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore how patients with cancer use heuristics when deciding whether to share their data for research.

METHODS

The researchers conducted a focus group study of Canadians who have experienced cancer. We recruited participants through an online advertisement, screening individuals based on their ability to increase demographic diversity in the sample. We reviewed the literature on data-sharing platforms to develop a semistructured topic guide on concerns about data sharing, incentives to share, and consent and control. Focus group facilitators led the open-ended discussions about data-sharing preferences that revealed underlying heuristics. Two qualitative analysts coded transcripts using a heuristic framework developed from a review of the literature. Transcripts were analyzed for heuristic instances which were grouped according to sociocultural categories. Using thematic analysis, the analysts generated reflexive themes through norming sessions and consultations.

RESULTS

A total of 3 focus groups were held with 19 participants in total. The analysis identified 12 heuristics underlying intentions to share data. From the thematic analysis, we identified how the heuristics of social norms and community building were expressed through altruism; the recognition, reputation, and authority heuristics led to (dis)trust in certain institutions; the need for security prompted the illusion of control and transparency heuristics; and the availability and affect heuristics influenced attitudes around risk and benefit. These thematic relationships all had impacts on the participants' intentions to share their health data.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide a novel qualitative understanding of how health data-sharing decisions and preferences may be based on heuristic processing. As patients consider the extent of risks and benefits, heuristic processes influence their assessment of anticipated outcomes, which may not result in rational, truly informed consent. This study shows how considering heuristic processing when designing current consent mechanisms opens up the opportunity for more meaningful and realistic interactions with the complex decision-making context.