‘As Long as It's Used for Beneficial Things’: An Investigation of non-Māori, Māori and Young People's Perceptions Regarding the Research use of the Aotearoa New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI)
Published in
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, July 2022
The Aotearoa New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) is a national database containing a wide range of data about people and households. There is limited information about public views regarding its use for research.A qualitative study was undertaken to examine the views of forty individuals attending a large hospital in Auckland, including those of Māori ethnicity and young people. Semi-structured interview data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's method of thematic analysis.Seven key themes emerged: 1) Limited knowledge about medical data held in national databases; 2) Conditional support for the use of the IDI, including for research; 3) Concerns regarding the misuse of IDI data; 4) The importance of privacy; 5) Different views regarding consent for use of data for research; 6) Desire for access to personal data and the results of research; and 7) Concerns regarding third party and commercial use. Young people and those of Māori ethnicity were more wary of data misuse than others.Although there is reasonable support for the secondary use of public administrative data in the IDI for research, there is more work to be done to ensure ethical and culturally appropriate use of this data via improved consent privacy management processes and researcher training.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 July 2022.
All research outputs
#17,757,296
of 27,627,301 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
#257
of 429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,227
of 442,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,627,301 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them
