Public perspectives on the use of different data types for prediction in healthcare

Objective: Understand public comfort with the use of different data types for predictive models Materials and Methods: We analyzed data from a national survey of US adults (n = 1436) fielded from November to December 2021. For three categories of data (identified using factor analysis), we use descriptive statistics to capture comfort level. Results: Public comfort with data use for prediction is low. For 13 of 15 data types, most respondents were uncomfortable with that data being used for prediction. In factor analysis, 15 types of data grouped into three categories based on public comfort: (1) personal characteristic data, (2) health-related data, and (3) sensitive data. Mean comfort was highest for health-related data (2.45, SD 0.84, range 1-4), followed by personal characteristic data (2.36, SD 0.94), and sensitive data (1.88, SD 0.77). Across these categories, we observe a statistically significant positive relationship between trust in health systems' use of patient information and comfort with data use for prediction. Discussion: Although public trust is recognized as important for the sustainable expansion of predictive tools, current policy does not reflect public concerns. Low comfort with data use for prediction should be addressed in order to prevent potential negative impacts on trust in healthcare. Conclusion: Our results provide empirical evidence on public perspectives, which are important for shaping the use of predictive models. Findings demonstrate a need for realignment of policy around the sensitivity of non-clinical data categories.