Engaging Stigmatised Communities in Australia with Digital Health Systems: Towards Data Justice in Public Health

Abstract

Introduction In 2018, following government policy changes to Australia’s national electronic health record system, ‘My Health Record’, consumer advocates—including organisations representing people living with HIV, people who use drugs and sex workers—raised concerns about privacy and data security. Responding to these controversies, this study explores the practical, ethical and political complexities of engaging stigmatised communities with digital health systems. Methods We conducted 16 qualitative semi-structured interviews in 2020 with key informants representing communities who experience stigma, discrimination and marginalisation in Australia. These communities included people living with HIV, sex workers, people who inject drugs, gay and bisexual men and transgender and gender diverse people. We conducted a reflexive thematic analysis. Results Key informants were sceptical of proposed benefits of electronic health records for their communities, and concerned about privacy risks and the potential for discrimination. Meaningful consultation, consent mechanisms and tackling structural stigma were raised as solutions for engaging communities. Conclusions Although communities could benefit from being included in digital health systems, significant cultural, legal and social reforms from government were believed to be necessary to build trust in digital health systems. We argue that these forms of data justice are necessary for effective future systems. Policy Implications Engaging stigmatised communities—including in relation to gender, sexuality, sex work, drug use, HIV—requires a commitment to data justice. The design and implementation of digital health systems requires investment in ongoing and meaningful consultation with communities and representative organisations.

Advancing Dialogue About Consent and Molecular HIV Surveillance in the United States: Four Proposals Following a Federal Advisory Panel's Call for Major Reforms

“…These aspects are also potentially the most transformative parts of the resolution because they call for a rethinking of how HIV surveillance and prevention should take place in the era of digitized public health systems, integrated HIV data infrastructures, and routine uses of molecular epidemiology in public health programs. We operate from the premise that new digital health systems and the introduction of pathogen genomics and big data methods into routine practice raise questions about appropriate data uses related to privacy, confidentiality, autonomy, and the right for individuals to be informed that prompt a collective rethinking of traditional public health frameworks that do not require individual consent for infectious disease control programs 20,22,26,27 …”

“…We operate from the premise that new digital health systems and the introduction of pathogen genomics and big data methods into routine practice raise questions about appropriate data uses related to privacy, confidentiality, autonomy, and the right for individuals to be informed that prompt a collective rethinking of traditional public health frameworks that do not require individual consent for infectious disease control programs. 20,22,26,27…”

Health policy counterpublics: Enacting collective resistances to US molecular HIV surveillance and cluster detection and response programs

“…There has not been a controversy related to uses of HIV data in the US at the scale of the MHS/CDR conflict since debates about the introduction of names-based case reporting in the 1990s and 2000s (Fairchild et al, 2007). In the context of growing investments in big data and digital health, controversies over HIV data are likely to extend beyond this case: The matters of concern generated by the MHS/CDR health policy counterpublic were explicitly focused on broader issues in the political economy of health data (McClelland et al, 2020;Molldrem et al, 2023aMolldrem et al, , 2023bSmith et al, 2023). Implementers of new policies related to HIV prevention and surveillance should consider how programs interact with existing HIV criminalization laws and practices, community trust in healthcare, stigma and discrimination, and data sharing, privacy, and security regulations.…”

“…You'd be pissed, too"' (P05-Public Health Professional). While possibilities for consent were contested, participants collectively argued for greater community education and efforts to inform patients about how their data might be used, noting that neglecting to do so could heighten distrust in health systems (Smith et al, 2023). Demands for consent affordances, opt-outs, or plain-language notifications about MHS/CDR became a specific policy request of many actors in the MHS/CDR counterpublic, which were legitimized by PACHA (Molldrem et al, 2023a, Molldrem, Smith, & Subrahmanyam, 2023PACHA, 2022).…”

The future of translational medical humanities: bridging the data/narrative divide

“…Yet, the ‘community’ piece of this feedback loop often remains vague. The role of community perspectives comes into view more clearly when approaches that account for human experience explicitly become part of the methodology ( Smith et al . 2023 ).…”