As the development of the Internet and social media has led to pervasive data collection and usage practices, consumers’ privacy concerns have increasingly grown stronger. While previous research has investigated consumer valuation of personal data and privacy, only few studies have investigated valuation of different privacy aspects (e.g., third party sharing). Addressing this research gap in the literature, the present study explores Internet users’ valuations of three different privacy aspects on a social networking service (i.e., Facebook), which are commonly captured in privacy policies (i.e., data collection, data control, and third party sharing). A total of 350 participants will be recruited for an experimental online study. The experimental design will consecutively contrast a conventional, free-of-charge version of Facebook with four hypothetical, privacy-enhanced premium versions of the same service. The privacy-enhanced premium versions will offer (1) restricted data collection on side of the company; (2) enhanced data control for users; and (3) no third party sharing, respectively. A fourth premium version offers full protection of all three privacy aspects. Participants’ valuation of the privacy aspects captured in the premium versions will be quantified measuring willingness-to-pay. Additionally, a psychological test battery will be employed to examine the psychological mechanisms (e.g., privacy concerns, trust, and risk perceptions) underlying the valuation of privacy. Overall, this study will offer insights into valuation of different privacy aspects, thus providing valuable suggestions for economically sustainable privacy enhancements and alternative business models that are beneficial to consumers, businesses, practitioners, and policymakers, alike.
MWW ist Mitarbeiter der Weltgesundheitsorganisation. Die ausgedrückte Meinung ist seine eigene und entspricht nicht notwendigerweise der Politik und den Positionen der WHO.
BackgroundSocio-economic inequalities in common mental disorders (CMDs) such as lifetime prevalence, treatment utilisation, and perceived treatment helpfulness have been documented in various settings. However, whether these inequalities are present globally (in both HICs and LMICs) and what factors explain between-country variation is unclear because of inadequate cross-national data. We therefore examine this question using a recently published global, individual-level survey data.MethodsThis study uses a nationally representative individual-level survey dataset (Wellcome Global Monitor 2020), in 111 countries (N= 117,088) to test if socio-economic factors (household income quintile, education), psycho-social factors (local stigma perception, trust in health professionals) and country-level factors (GDP, Gini, health expenditure) predict (1) CMD lifetime prevalence, (2) utilisation and (3) perceived helpfulness of talking to a mental health professional and taking prescribed medication. Multi-level logistic regression models were used.FindingsAcross both HICs and LMICs, individuals in higher household quintiles are less likely to experience anxiety or depression (OR=0.90 for each increase in income quintile, 95% CI[0.89–0.91]), more likely to talk to a mental health professional (OR=1.05[1.03–1.07]) and more likely to perceive this treatment as ‘very helpful’ (OR=1.06[1.03–1.09]). Income is not, however, linked to utilisation (OR=0.98[0.97–1.01]) and helpfulness of taking prescribed medication (OR=1.02[0.99–1.05]). Perceived stigma reduces mental health professional utilisation (OR=0.93[0.90–0.97]) and helpfulness (OR=0.76[0.72–0.81]), while trust in health practitioners increases both utilisation (OR=1.10[1.06–1.14]) and helpfulness (OR=1.32[1.24–1.40]). Country-level health expenditure is related to higher mental health professional utilisation (OR=1.11[1.04–1.19].InterpretationThis analysis reveals a global ‘triple inequality effect’, whereby the disadvantages of lower SES individuals persist in each outcome (lifetime prevalence, treatment utilisation and helpfulness). But these inequalities are moderated by background factors such as stigma and trust in health professionals, and depend on the type of treatment. These findings suggest that addressing inequalities in CMDs cannot focus on only one of these inequalities alone nor can efforts ignore the social context in which they are embedded.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.