Back

Young peoples data governance preferences for their mental health data: MindKind Study findings from India, South Africa, and the United Kingdom

Sieberts, S.; Marten, C.; Bampton, E.; Björling, E. A.; Burn, A.-M.; Carey, E.; Carlson, S.; Fernandes, B.; Kalha, J.; Lindani, S.; Masomera, H.; Neelakantan, L.; Pasquale, L.; Ranganathan, S.; Scanlan, J.; Shah, H.; Sibisi, R.; Sumant, S.; Suver, C.; Thungana, Y.; Tummalacherla, M.; Velloza, J.; Collins, P.; Fazel, M.; Ford, T.; Freeman, M.; Pathare, S.; Zingela, Z.; The MindKind Consortium, ; Doerr, M.

2022-12-20 health informatics
10.1101/2022.12.19.22283679 medRxiv
Show abstract

Mobile devices offer a scalable opportunity to collect longitudinal data that facilitate advances in mental health treatment to address the burden of mental health conditions in young people. Sharing these data with the research community is critical to gaining maximal value from rich data of this nature. However, the highly personal nature of the data necessitates understanding the conditions under which young people are willing to share them. To answer this question, we developed the MindKind Study, a multinational, mixed methods study that solicits young peoples preferences for how their data are governed and quantifies potential participants willingness to join under different conditions. We employed a community-based participatory approach, involving young people as stakeholders and co-researchers. At sites in India, South Africa, and the UK, we enrolled 3575 participants ages 16-24 in the mobile app-mediated quantitative study and 143 participants in the public deliberation-based qualitative study. We found that while youth participants have strong preferences for data governance, these preferences did not translate into (un)willingness to join the smartphone-based study. Participants grappled with the risks and benefits of participation as well as their desire that the "right people" access their data. Throughout the study, we recognized young peoples commitment to finding solutions and co-producing research architectures to allow for more open sharing of mental health data to accelerate and derive maximal benefit from research.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
62.3%
50% of probability mass above
2
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.7%
4
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
5
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
6
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
7
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.8%
9
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
10
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.5%
12
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
13
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
14
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
15
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
16
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
17
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.8%
18
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
19
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
22
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%