@article {Atkin2020.09.12.20193276, author = {C Atkin and B Crosby and K Dunn and G Price and E Marston and C Crawford and M O{\textquoteright}Hara and C. Morgan and M. Levermore and S. Gallier and S. Modhwadia and J. Attwood and S Perks and A.K. Denniston and G Gkoutos and R. Dormer and A. Rosser and A. Ignatowicz and H Fanning and E Sapey and On behalf of the PIONEER Data Hub}, title = {Perceptions of anonymised data use and awareness of the NHS data opt-out amongst patients, carers and healthcare staff}, elocation-id = {2020.09.12.20193276}, year = {2020}, doi = {10.1101/2020.09.12.20193276}, publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press}, abstract = {Introduction Public awareness and support for secondary health data use may vary by health care experience and participant demographics. England provides an example of a centralised {\textquotedblleft}opt out{\textquotedblright} for secondary use of anonymised health data. We explored the awareness, support for and concerns about anonymised healthcare data secondary use and the NHS data opt-out system amongst patients, carers, healthcare staff and the public within the West Midlands.Methods A patient and public engagement program was completed, including patient and public workshops, questionnaires regarding anonymised health data use and feedback discussion groups.Results Central concerns for health data use included unauthorised data re-use, the potential for discrimination and profit generation without patient benefit. Key priorities were projects leading to patient benefit, oversight by the NHS as a trusted organisation, increasing awareness of the NHS data opt-out, and ongoing public/patient involvement.Questionnaires showed 31.8\% were aware of the NHS data opt-out. 93.8\% were happy for their data to be used for NHS research, 84.8\% for academic research and 68.4\% by health companies. However, opinion varied with demographics (age, gender or public, patient, NHS staff and volunteers).Agreed action points for health data use were education regarding the National Data Opt-Out, public involvement in data requests, NHS oversight, and transparency.Conclusion Use of anonymised healthcare data for secondary purposes is acceptable to most patients, carers and healthcare workers. However, awareness is limited, and initiatives to publicise potential benefits are needed amongst patients, healthcare staff and the public.1) What is already known?The secondary use of health data without explicit consent has been widely debated. The potential benefits are clear but public groups have raised concerns, especially when anonymised data is shared with commercial entities.2) What does this paper add?Perceptions of and support for secondary health data use vary by demographic (age, gender) and experience of health services (Staff member, patient, member of the public). Knowledge of schemes to limit secondary data use (such as the UK National Data Op-Out) are low, even among NHS staff. Patient and public agreed themes to increase the acceptability of health data secondary use include education about {\textquoteleft}Opt-out{\textquoteright} schemes, health service oversight of data use (as the most trusted partner), public and patient involvement in data sharing decisions and public transparency. This framework may increase the acceptability of health data use.StrengthsMixed methods approach including workshops and questionnairesIncludes children aged 13 and over, which is important given they can {\textquoteleft}opt-out{\textquoteright} of health data use at this age using the UK{\textquoteright}s National Data Opt-Out.Includes demographics of the diverse participants, rarely collected in most online surveysIncludes NHS Staff members, patients and current non-patients, but people with experience of NHS servicesLimitationsWest Midlands based and not nationalLimited numbers (300+ sample) preventing analysis of sub groups.Participant selection included people with experience of NHS hospital services, and therefore may not be generalisableCompeting Interest StatementCA BC KD GP EM MOH CM AI CC ML SM SG SP JA RD AR HF have no conflicts of interest. GG reports funding from HDR-UK. AKD reports funding from HDRUK, The Wellcome Trust and Fight for Sight. ES reports funding from the Wellcome Trust, MRC, HDR-UK, Alpha 1 Foundation, British Lung Foundation and NIHR.Clinical TrialNot applicableFunding StatementThis work was supported by PIONEER, the Health Data Research Hub in acute care which is funded by Health Data Research UK (HDR-UK).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:PIONEER is an ethically-approved research database and analytical environment (East Midlands Derby Research Ethics 20/EM/0158). This PPIE work was conducted following ethical approval from the University of Birmingham Ethical Committee (reference ERN_20-0118).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesStructured data is available from the PIONEER Hub upon reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author for details.}, URL = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/14/2020.09.12.20193276}, eprint = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/14/2020.09.12.20193276.full.pdf}, journal = {medRxiv} }