Advancing a Consent-Forward Paradigm for Digital Mental Health Data
0
📊
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper discusses the growing field of digital mental health and the concerning trend of users having little say over how their data is collected, shared, and used by private companies.
- The authors propose an alternative approach called the "consent-forward paradigm" that embeds principles of affirmative consent in the design of digital mental health tools and services.
- This paradigm aims to strengthen trust by designing around individual choices and needs, and proactively protecting users from unexpected harm.
Plain English Explanation
As more people use digital tools and services to manage their mental health, the companies that provide these tools are collecting a lot of data about user behavior and experiences. Unfortunately, users often have little control over how this data is collected, shared, or used to make money for these companies. This is a concerning trend, especially given the history of service users being excluded from decisions around data collection practices.
The authors of this paper propose a new approach called the "consent-forward paradigm." This paradigm focuses on giving users more control and say over how their personal data is used. The key idea is to design digital mental health tools and services in a way that respects individual choices and needs, and actively protects users from potential harms. This is in contrast to the current model, where users may not even know what's happening with their data.
By putting consent and user control at the forefront, this new paradigm aims to build greater trust between people seeking mental health support and the companies providing the digital tools. The authors outline practical steps to implement this consent-forward approach, with the goal of ensuring that people have the safest possible experiences when using these important digital services.
Technical Explanation
The paper outlines a new "consent-forward paradigm" for the design of digital mental health tools and services. This paradigm embeds principles of affirmative consent, strengthening trust through designing around individual choices and needs, and proactively protecting users from unexpected harm.
The authors note that as the field of digital mental health has grown, a concerning norm has emerged where digital service users are given little say over how their data is collected, shared, or used to generate revenue for private companies. This is troubling given the long history of service user exclusion from data collection practices.
To address this issue, the consent-forward paradigm proposes practical steps such as:
- Explicitly obtaining user consent for data collection and use
- Providing granular control over data sharing preferences
- Transparent reporting on how user data is being utilized
- Proactive mitigation of potential harms or negative outcomes
By embedding these principles into the design of digital mental health tools, the authors argue that greater trust can be built between users and service providers. This, in turn, can lead to safer and more effective digital mental health support for those in need.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a compelling case for the consent-forward paradigm as an alternative to current data collection practices in digital mental health. However, the authors acknowledge that implementing this approach may face challenges, such as balancing user control with the need for service providers to collect and analyze data to improve their offerings.
Additionally, the paper does not address the potential for conflicts of interest if service providers are also the ones responsible for obtaining user consent and managing data usage. There may be a need for independent oversight or third-party verification to ensure that user consent and data rights are truly being respected.
Further research and real-world testing would be valuable to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the consent-forward paradigm in different digital mental health contexts. Engaging with service users themselves to understand their needs and preferences would also be an important next step.
Conclusion
The consent-forward paradigm proposed in this paper offers a promising alternative to the current data collection practices in the digital mental health field. By prioritizing user consent, control, and protection, this approach has the potential to build greater trust between service providers and those seeking mental health support online.
As the field of digital mental health continues to evolve, it will be crucial to ensure that user rights and wellbeing remain at the forefront of service design and data management. The practical steps outlined in this paper provide a useful framework for moving in that direction, towards a future where people can access the digital tools they need with confidence and peace of mind.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
📊
0
Advancing a Consent-Forward Paradigm for Digital Mental Health Data
Sachin R. Pendse, Logan Stapleton, Neha Kumar, Munmun De Choudhury, Stevie Chancellor
The field of digital mental health is advancing at a rapid pace. Passively collected data from user engagements with digital tools and services continue to contribute new insights into mental health and illness. As the field of digital mental health grows, a concerning norm has been established -- digital service users are given little say over how their data is collected, shared, or used to generate revenue for private companies. Given a long history of service user exclusion from data collection practices, we propose an alternative approach that is attentive to this history: the consent-forward paradigm. This paradigm embeds principles of affirmative consent in the design of digital mental health tools and services, strengthening trust through designing around individual choices and needs, and proactively protecting users from unexpected harm. In this perspective, we outline practical steps to implement this paradigm, toward ensuring that people searching for care have the safest experiences possible.
Read more4/24/2024
0
Designing Value-Centered Consent Interfaces: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Support Patient Values in Data-Sharing Decisions
David Leimstadtner, Peter Sorries, Claudia-Muller Birn
In the digital health domain, ethical data collection practices are crucial for ensuring the availability of quality datasets that drive medical advancement. Data donation, allowing patients to share their clinical data for secondary research use, presents a promising resource for such datasets. Yet, current consent interfaces mediating data-sharing decisions are found to favor data-collectors' values by leveraging cognitive biases in data-subjects towards higher data-sharing rates. This raises ethical concerns about the use of data collected, as well as concerning the quality of the resulting datasets. Seeking to establish patient-centered data collection practices in digital health, we investigate the design of consent interfaces that support end-users in making value-congruent health data-sharing decisions. Focusing our research efforts on the situated context of health data donation at the psychosomatic unit of a German university hospital, we demonstrate how a human-centered design can ground technology within the perspective of a vulnerable group. We employed an exploratory sequential mixed-method approach consisting of five phases: Participatory workshops explore patient values, informing the design of a proposed Value-Centered Consent Interface. An online experiment demonstrates our interface element's effect, increasing value-congruence in data-sharing decisions. Our proposed consent interface design is then adapted to the research context through a co-creation workshop with subject experts and a user evaluation with patients. Our work contributes to recent discourse in CSCW concerning ethical implications of new data practices within their socio-technological context by exploring patient values on medical data sharing, introducing a novel consent interface to support value-congruent decision-making, and providing a situated evaluation of the proposed interface with patients.
Read more7/8/2024
📊
0
Towards a potential paradigm shift in health data collection and analysis
David Josef Herzog, Nitsa Judith Herzog
Industrial Revolution 4.0 transforms healthcare systems. The first three technological revolutions changed the relationship between human and machine interaction due to the exponential growth of machine numbers. The fourth revolution put humans into a situation where heterogeneous data is produced with unmatched quantity and quality not only by traditional methods, enforced by digitization, but also by ubiquitous computing, machine-to-machine interactions and smart environment. The modern cyber-physical space underlines the role of the person in the expanding context of computerization and big data processing. In healthcare, where data collection and analysis particularly depend on human efforts, the disruptive nature of these developments is evident. Adaptation to this process requires deep scrutiny of the trends and recognition of future medical data technologies` evolution. Significant difficulties arise from discrepancies in requirements by healthcare, administrative and technology stakeholders. Black box and grey box decisions made in medical imaging and diagnostic Decision Support Software are often not transparent enough for the professional, social and medico-legal requirements. While Explainable AI proposes a partial solution for AI applications in medicine, the approach has to be wider and multiplex. LLM potential and limitations are also discussed. This paper lists the most significant issues in these topics and describes possible solutions.
Read more4/3/2024
⚙️
0
Nudging Consent and the New Opt Out System to the Processing of Health Data in England
Janos Meszaros, Chih-hsing Ho, Marcelo Corrales Compagnucci
This chapter examines the challenges of the revised opt out system and the secondary use of health data in England. The analysis of this data could be very valuable for science and medical treatment as well as for the discovery of new drugs. For this reason, the UK government established the care.data program in 2013. The aim of the project was to build a central nationwide database for research and policy planning. However, the processing of personal data was planned without proper public engagement. Research has suggested that IT companies, such as in the Google DeepMind deal case, had access to other kinds of sensitive data and failed to comply with data protection law. Since May 2018, the government has launched the national data opt out system with the hope of regaining public trust. Nevertheless, there are no evidence of significant changes in the ND opt out, compared to the previous opt out system. Neither in the use of secondary data, nor in the choices that patients can make. The only notorious difference seems to be in the way that these options are communicated and framed to the patients. Most importantly, according to the new ND opt out, the type 1 opt out option, which is the only choice that truly stops data from being shared outside direct care, will be removed in 2020. According to the Behavioral Law and Economics literature (Nudge Theory), default rules, such as the revised opt out system in England, are very powerful, because people tend to stick to the default choices made readily available to them. The crucial question analyzed in this chapter is whether it is desirable for the UK government to stop promoting the type 1 opt outs, and whether this could be seen as a kind of hard paternalism.
Read more7/30/2024