Personal health information in Canada: A comparison of citizen expectations and legislation

Peekhaus, Wilhelm

doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.05.002

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Successful and appropriate usage of the m-health service system largely depends on continuous communication between host and service provider who are located in two different remote places. Excluding adopters' individual capability to use the system and performance of technology to function properly, the service providers' capacity and capability to relentlessly monitor and feedback in a trusted manner is a prevalent condition for pursuing users to adopt any innovative systems from anywhere, anytime (Kumar, Kumar, Shareef, & Sharan, 2013;Peekhaus, 2008;Weerakkody, Janssen, & Dwivedi, 2011). The consumers concern for security, privacy, and reliability has a substantial contribution in conceiving this remote technology-driven system where a face-to-face encounter is absent (Gefen et al, 2003;Gelders et al, 2009;Lin & Wang, 2006;Mallat, 2007;O'Cass & Fenech, 2003;Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006).…”

Section: Facilitating Conditions (Fc)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A generalised adoption model for services: A cross-country comparison of mobile health (m-health)

Dwivedi

Shareef

Simintiras

et al. 2016

Government Information Quarterly

410

244

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t Keywords:Mobile health (m-health) Adoption behaviour Consumer preference Consumer behaviour UTAUT model Cultural effect Which antecedents affect the adoption by users is still often a puzzle for policy-makers. Antecedents examined in this research include technological artefacts from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), consumer context from UTAUT2 and psychological behaviour concepts such as citizens' channel preference and product selection criteria. This research also investigated cultural domination on citizens' behavioural perception. The data for this study was collected among citizens from three countries: USA, Canada, and Bangladesh. The findings suggest that the UTAUT model could partially shape technology artefact behaviour and the extended UTAUT must consider specific determinants relevant to cognitive, affective, and conative or behavioural aspects of citizens. The model helps policy-makers to develop mobile healthcare service system that will be better accepted. The finding also suggests that this mobile service system should reflect a country's cultural traits. These findings basically extend the theoretical concept of UTAUT model to articulate adoption behaviour of any complex and sensitive ICT related issues like mobile healthcare system. Crown

show abstract

Section: Facilitating Conditions (Fc)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A generalised adoption model for services: A cross-country comparison of mobile health (m-health)

Dwivedi

Shareef

Simintiras

et al. 2016

Government Information Quarterly

410

244

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Limited exposure refers to the degree to which a person's privacy was exposed to the third party (Brann and Mattson, 2004;Burgoon et al, 1989;Cavoukian and Garcia, 2008;Patel et al, 2001;Peekhaus, 2008;Whetten-Goldstein et al, 2001). For example, patients may feel uncomfortable or even threatened when their physicians collect, use, disseminate, and store unreasonable amounts of personal information.…”

Section: Healthcare Privacy Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients' perceptions of privacy and their outcomes in healthcare

Serenko

Fan

2013

IJBHR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is twofold: 1) to develop a measurement instrument of patient perceptions of privacy in the healthcare sector; 2) to empirically investigate the outcomes of privacy. Privacy is conceptualised as a multi-dimensional construct consisting of three theoretically independent dimensions: informational, physical, and psychological. A survey instrument was developed and subjected to extensive face validity assessment. The model was tested through a survey of 129 healthcare users in Canada by means of partial least squares. The instrument was found to be reliable and valid. Informational privacy is a key component of the overall privacy perceptions of healthcare users, followed by physical privacy. Psychological privacy has no effect on the overall privacy construct. Privacy has a strong effect on trust, which in turn affects the level of commitment, intentions to use the provider's services in the future, and engagement in positive word-of-mouth.

show abstract

“…The Human Rights Act of 1977 followed by the Privacy Act of 1982 were the first legislative acts to protect personal information across the Canadian public sector ( Peekhaus 2008 ). In 1987, at a time when the HIV epidemic was gaining momentum across Canada, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was the first legislation to outline “principles of conscientious and cautious handling” of PHI that institutions were responsible to adhere to ( Cavoukian 1990 ).…”

Section: Regulatory Framework and Privacy: What Legislative Infrastrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 1987, at a time when the HIV epidemic was gaining momentum across Canada, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was the first legislation to outline “principles of conscientious and cautious handling” of PHI that institutions were responsible to adhere to ( Cavoukian 1990 ). What followed was legislation that extended the protection of personal information in the private sector in Canada, and in 2001, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) came into effect ( Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network 2004 ; Peekhaus 2008 ). Since 1997, provinces have adopted privacy legislation that specifically applies to healthcare providers regardless of whether they are engaged in commercial activities ( Peekhaus 2008 ), and, currently, nine provinces have specific laws that protect PHI and impose obligations on healthcare providers to protect that information ( Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network 2014 ).…”

Section: Regulatory Framework and Privacy: What Legislative Infrastrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Privacy Regulatory Frameworks in Canada in the Context of HIV

Ion¹

2016

hcpol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the process of receiving perinatal care, women living with HIV (WLWH) in Canada have experienced disclosure of their HIV status without their express consent. This disclosure often occurs by well-intentioned healthcare providers; however, from the perspective of WLWH, it is a breach of confidentiality and leaves WLWH to manage the consequences. This paper is a critical review of the regulatory and legislative infrastructure that exists to protect the personal health information of WLWH in Ontario and Canada; the recourse that WLWH have in the event that their confidentiality is breached; and potential approaches that could be applied to organize the system differently to decrease the chance of a privacy breach and to facilitate appropriate collection, use and disclosure of personal health information. RésuméDans le cadre des soins périnataux, des femmes qui vivent avec le VIH (FVIH) au Canada ont vu leur état divulgué sans leur consentement. Ces divulgations sont souvent faites par des prestataires de soins de santé bien intentionnés; cependant, du point de vue des FVIH, il s' agit d' un manquement à l' obligation de confidentialité, lequel les force à en gérer les conséquences. Cet article est une revue critique des infrastructures réglementaires et législatives en vigueur pour protéger les renseignements médicaux personnels des FVIH en Ontario et au Canada; des recours auxquels elles peuvent faire appel en cas de manquement à l' obligation HEALTHCARE POLICY Vol.11 No.4, 2016 [83] de confidentialité; et des démarches éventuelles qui pourraient servir à une réorganisation du système afin de réduire le risque de manquement à l' obligation de confidentialité et faciliter la collecte, l' utilisation et la divulgation appropriées des renseignements médicaux personnels.T

show abstract

Personal health information in Canada: A comparison of citizen expectations and legislation

Cited by 15 publications

References 4 publications

A generalised adoption model for services: A cross-country comparison of mobile health (m-health)

A generalised adoption model for services: A cross-country comparison of mobile health (m-health)

Patients' perceptions of privacy and their outcomes in healthcare

Examining Privacy Regulatory Frameworks in Canada in the Context of HIV

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About