Author:
- Joanna Sleigh
Abstract:
Technological developments, such as the advent of social networking sites, apps, and tracking ‘cookies’, enable the generation and collection of unprecedented quantities of rich personal and behavioural data, opening up a vast new resource for mental health research. Despite these non-traditional health-related data already forming a vital foundation of many new research avenues, little analysis has been done focusing on the experiences, motivations, and concerns of the individuals already engaged in data sharing and donation practices. This explorative study aims to investigate the experiences of individuals voluntarily donating their data to mental health research, specifically through the open data initiative OurDataHelps.org, which aims to develop effective suicide prevention tools. Qualitative semi-structured interviews and participant observation were used on a small sample of participants, yielding 3 key findings: (1) The relationship between participants and their data traces fluctuated between unconscious agency and hyper awareness through curatorship. (2) Despite having concerns about privacy and surveillance, participants were driven by altruistic motivations to engage with health researchers valued by their community, in the hope that their personal information could be of some benefit to future avenues of research. (3) In most cases represented in this sample group, motivation was found to stem from personal experiences with mental health, suicide, and loss. In the suicide survivor community, the experience of data donation is often valued as a method for emotional processing of a loss, connecting with the experiences of others, or as a way of regaining a sense of ‘purpose’. By understanding the motivations of individual participants, future projects can ensure that data donation processes are a positive experience and ultimately, increase and sustain the huge potential resources for health researchers worldwide.
Document:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30013355/
References:
1. Kosinski M, Stillwell D, Graepel T. Private traits and attributions are predictable from digital records of human behaviour. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2013;110:5802–5805. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Freifeld C, Brownstein J, Menone C, et al. Digital drug surveillance: monitoring pharmaceutical products on Twitter. Drug Safety. 2014;37:343–350. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. McNeil S. Using social media to identify those with mental illness and substance use disorders. Am J Psychiat Resid J. 2017;11:13. [Google Scholar]
4. Wesolowski A, Stresman G, Eagle N, et al. Quantifying travel behaviour for infectious disease research: a comparison of data from surveys and mobile phones. Sci Rep. 2014;4:5678. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Wolfie C. Corporate Surveillance in Everyday Life. How Companies Collect, Combine, Analyze, Trade, and Use Personal Data on Billions. Vienna, Austria: Cracked Labs; 2017. [Google Scholar]
6. Ruiz JB, Barnett GA. Who owns the international internet networks? J Int Comm. 2014;21:38–57. [Google Scholar]
7. McPhail TL. Electronic colonialism: the future of international broadcasting and communication. VRÜ. 1982;16:77–80. [Google Scholar]
8. Stocking G. State of the News Media 2017. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2017. [Google Scholar]
9. Van Lieshout M. The value of personal data. In: Camenisch J, Fischer-Hübner S, Hansen M, eds. Privacy and Identity Management for the Future Internet in the Age of Globalisation. Bern, Switzerland: Springer; 2015:26–39. [Google Scholar]
10. Ali M, Khan S, Vasilakos A. Security in cloud computing: opportunities and challenges. Informat Sci. 2015;305:357–383. [Google Scholar]
11. Thilakanathan D, Chen S, Nepal S, Calvo R, Alem L. A platform for secure monitoring and sharing of generic health data in the Cloud. Fut Generat Comp Syst. 2014;35:102–113. [Google Scholar]
12. Skatova A, Ng E, Goulding J. Data Donation: Sharing Personal Data for Public Good? Application of Digital Innovation. London, England: N-Lab; 2014. [Google Scholar]
13. Bietz M, Cinnamon B, Scout C, et al. Opportunities and challenges in the use of personal health data for health research. J Am Med Informat Assoc. 2015;23:42–48. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Coppersmith G, Dredze M, Harman C. Quantifying mental health signals in Twitter. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology: From Linguistic Signal to Clinical Reality, June 27, 2014:51–60, Baltimore, MD. [Google Scholar]
15. Loveys K, Crutchley P, Wyatt E, Coppersmith E. Small but mighty: affective micropatterns for quantifying mental health from social media language. Paper presented at: The Fourth Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology – From Linguistic Signal to Clinical Reality; August 3, 2017:85–95, Vancouver, BC, Canada. [Google Scholar]
16. Heider D, Massanari A. Digital Ethics: Research and Practice. New York, NY: Peter Lang; 2012. [Google Scholar]
17. American Anthropological Association. Ethics blog: full text of the 2012. ethics statement. http://ethics.americananthro.org/category/statement/. Published November 1, 2012. Accessed October 1, 2017.
18. Benton A, Coppersmith G, Dredze M. Ethical Research Protocols for Social Media Health Research. EACL. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Ethics in Natural Language Processing at the Association for Computational Linguistics, April 4, 2017:94–02, Valencia: Spain. [Google Scholar]
19. Dwyer S, Buckle J. The space between: on being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. Int J Qual Met. 2009;8:54–63. [Google Scholar]
20. DeMunck V, Sobo E. Using Methods in the Field. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
21. Pike L. Emic and etic standpoints for the description of behaviour. In: Smith AG, ed. Communication and Culture. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1966:152–163. [Google Scholar]
22. Charmaz K, Belgrave LL. Grounded Theory. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2007. [Google Scholar]
23. Hayashi C. On the quantification of qualitative data from the mathematico-statistical point of view. Ann Inst Statist Mathemat. 1950;2:35–47. [Google Scholar]
24. Appadurai A. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1988. [Google Scholar]
25. Straume I. The political imaginary of global capitalism. In: Humphrey JF, Straume IS, eds. Depoliticization: The Political Imaginary of Global Capitalism. 2011:27–50. NSU Press: Norra Vallgatan, Sweden. [Google Scholar]
26. Graeber D. Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2001. [Google Scholar]
27. Spiekermann S, Korunovska J. Towards a value theory for personal data. J Informat Tech. 2017;32:62–84. [Google Scholar]
28. Weintraub J, Kumar K. Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
29. Steiner P. Gifts of blood and organs: the market and ‘fictitious’ commodities. Rev Fr Sociol. 2003;44:147–162. [Google Scholar]
30. Titmuss R. The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. London, England: London School of Economics; 1970. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Mauss M. The Gift (trans. Cunnison IG.). London, England: Cohen & West; 1954. [Google Scholar]
32. Sherry J. Gift giving in anthropological perspective. J Consumer Res. 1983;10:157–168. [Google Scholar]
33. Begley M, Quayle E. The lived experience of adults bereaved by suicide. Crisis. 2007;28:26–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]