Back

Public attitudes toward sharing health data for artificial intelligence: Differences by data type and sector in the Health in Central Denmark cohort

Schaarup, J. R.; Isaksen, A. A.; Hulman, A.

2026-03-22 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.03.19.26348784 medRxiv
Show abstract

AimsWe aimed to examine public perceptions of sharing various types of health data relevant for AI development, including electronic health records, audio recordings of consultations, medical images, and genetic information, with actors from either the public or the private sectors. MethodsWe analysed data from 38,740 participants of the Health in Central Denmark survey conducted in 2024. Participants were asked whether they would share different types of health data with an AI solution in healthcare. Each participant was randomised to either of two versions of the scenario and question where the AI application was developed in the public or private sector. Descriptive results (proportions and percentages) were weighted to represent the background population of approx. 1 million people in the Central Denmark Region. The association between randomization group (data recipient) and data sharing attitude ("Yes", "No", "Dont know") was analysed using multinomial logistic regression with "Dont know" as reference category. ResultsParticipants were most willing to share medical images (46%), followed by text from patient journals (39%), genetic information (35%), and audio recordings (27%). There were 12-16% higher proportions of willingness to share with public institutions than with private institutions. A high level of uncertainty was observed for all data types (29-36%) regardless of data recipient. Odds ratios ranged from 1.37 to 1.78 for responding "Yes", and from 0.51 to 0.67 for responding "No" to sharing data with public institutions compared to private institutions. ConclusionsPublic acceptance of health data sharing for AI depends on both the perceived sensitivity of the data and the institutional context of use. Strong public governance, transparent safeguards, and clear communication about data use may be important for maintaining trust and enabling responsible development of AI in healthcare.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.