Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · ACI open 2022; 06(01): e22-e33
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1749192
Original Article

Qualitative Study of Participant Impressions as Simulated Patients of MediLinker—A Blockchain-Based Identity Verification Application

John Robert Bautista
1   School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
,
Muhammad Usman
2   Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
,
Daniel Toshio Harrell
3   Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
,
Ishav Desai
3   Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
,
Cole Holan
3   Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
,
Cody Cowley
3   Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
,
Jeremiah Alexander
3   Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
,
Ladd Hanson
4   Information Technology Services, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
,
Eric T. Meyer
1   School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
,
Anjum Khurshid
3   Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding The authors would like to thank the University of Texas Blockchain Initiative for providing partial funding for this work. Bautista acknowledges the support of the Bullard and Boyvey Fellowships of the School of Information, the University of Texas at Austin.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective In this study, we obtained participants' views on using MediLinker—a blockchain-based identity verification and personal health information management application. We also gathered their views about the use of blockchain technology for controlling and managing personal health information, especially in the context of a global health crisis such as a pandemic.

Methods Online semistructured interviews were conducted with 29 simulated patients (i.e., avatars) who used MediLinker between February and May 2020. Interview data were analyzed qualitatively using a phenomenological approach to thematic analysis.

Results Most of the participants noted that they do not know what blockchain is nor understand how it works. Nonetheless, in the context of the study, they trust blockchain as a technology that can enhance data protection and privacy of their personal health information. Participants noted that MediLinker is a useful application that allows patients to easily input, share, and revoke personal health information. As a proof-of-concept application, participants also noted several issues and recommendations that can serve as points of improvement when developing subsequent versions of MediLinker. In the context of using MediLinker as part of a telemedicine system during a pandemic, participants noted that it facilitates social distancing, makes clinical transactions efficient and convenient, and enhances identity verification.

Conclusion In general, the findings lay the foundation for a user-centered approach in developing future iterations of MediLinker and other patient-facing blockchain-based health information technologies. Also, the findings provide important insights into how people perceive blockchain-based health information technologies, especially during a pandemic.

Keywords

blockchain - COVID-19 - identity management - personal health information - proof of concept - usability

Author Contributions

A.K. and D.T.H. conceptualized the study and obtained funding. J.R.B., D.T.H., E.T.M., L.H., and A.K. designed the study. J.R.B., M.U., D.T.H., I.D., J.A., C.C., L.H., and C.H. collected data. J.R.B., M.U., and D.T.H. performed data analysis. J.R.B., M.U., E.T.M., and A.K. wrote and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.


Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Participants provided written and verbal consent prior to interviews. The study received an exempt approval from the Institutional Review Board of MediLinker.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 17 February 2021

Accepted: 22 January 2022

Article published online:
27 June 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Jawhari B, Keenan L, Zakus D. et al. Barriers and facilitators to electronic medical record (EMR) use in an urban slum. Int J Med Inform 2016; 94: 246-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 O'Donnell A, Kaner E, Shaw C, Haighton C. Primary care physicians' attitudes to the adoption of electronic medical records: a systematic review and evidence synthesis using the clinical adoption framework. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2018; 18 (01) 101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kuo T-T, Kim H-E, Ohno-Machado L. Blockchain distributed ledger technologies for biomedical and health care applications. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (06) 1211-1220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gordon WJ, Catalini C. Blockchain technology for healthcare: facilitating the transition to patient-driven interoperability. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 2018; 16: 224-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 O'Donoghue O, Vazirani AA, Brindley D, Meinert E. Design choices and trade-offs in health care blockchain implementations: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (05) e12426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Roehrs A, da Costa CA, da Rosa Righi R. OmniPHR: a distributed architecture model to integrate personal health records. J Biomed Inform 2017; 71: 70-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Shrier D, Wu W, Pentland A. Blockchain & Infrastructure (Identity, Data Security). Published 2016. Accessed June 8, 2021 at: https://www.getsmarter.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mit_blockchain_and_infrastructure_report.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Meier P, Beinke JH, Fitte C, Schulte to Brinke JS, Teuteberg F. Generating design knowledge for blockchain-based access control to personal health records. Inf Syst E-Bus Manag 2021; 19 (01) 13-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hirano T, Motohashi T, Okumura K. et al. Data validation and verification using blockchain in a clinical trial for breast cancer: regulatory sandbox. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (06) e18938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Yaeger K, Martini M, Rasouli J, Costa A. Emerging blockchain technology solutions for modern healthcare infrastructure. J Sci Innov Med 2019; 2 (01) 1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Khurshid A, Holan C, Cowley C. et al. Designing and testing a blockchain application for patient identity management in healthcare. JAMIA Open 4 (03) ooaa73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ichikawa D, Kashiyama M, Ueno T. Tamper-resistant mobile health using blockchain technology. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017; 5 (07) e111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lee H-A, Kung H-H, Udayasankaran JG. et al. An architecture and management platform for blockchain-based personal health record exchange: development and usability study. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (06) e16748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Park YR, Lee E, Na W, Park S, Lee Y, Lee J-H. Is blockchain technology suitable for managing personal health records? Mixed-methods study to test feasibility. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (02) e12533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zhang A, Lin X. Towards secure and privacy-preserving data sharing in e-Health systems via consortium blockchain. J Med Syst 2018; 42 (08) 140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bansal A, Garg C, Padappayil RP. Optimizing the implementation of COVID-19 “immunity certificates” using blockchain. J Med Syst 2020; 44 (09) 140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Garg C, Bansal A, Padappayil RP. COVID-19: prolonged social distancing implementation strategy using blockchain-based movement passes. J Med Syst 2020; 44 (09) 165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Khurshid A. Applying blockchain technology to address the crisis of trust during the COVID-19 pandemic. JMIR Med Inform 2020; 8 (09) e20477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Abu-Elezz I, Hassan A, Nazeemudeen A, Househ M, Abd-Alrazaq A. The benefits and threats of blockchain technology in healthcare: a scoping review. Int J Med Inform 2020; 142: 104246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Strudwick G, Booth RG, Bjarnadottir RI. et al. The role of nurse managers in the adoption of health information technology: findings from a qualitative study. J Nurs Adm 2019; 49 (11) 549-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lee K, Lim K, Jung SY. et al. Perspectives of patients, health care professionals, and developers toward blockchain-based health information exchange: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (11) e18582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kpobi L, Swartz L, Ofori-Atta AL. Challenges in the use of the mental health information system in a resource-limited setting: lessons from Ghana. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18 (01) 98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mason P, Mayer R, Chien W-W, Monestime J. Overcoming barriers to implementing electronic health records in rural primary care clinics. Qual Rep 2017; 22 (11) 2943-2955
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tracy SJ. Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. 2nd ed.. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley;
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Esmaeilzadeh P, Mirzaei T. The potential of blockchain technology for health information exchange: experimental study from patients' perspectives. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (06) e14184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 El-Gazzar R, Stendal K. Blockchain in health care: hope or hype?. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (07) e17199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Caine K, Hanania R. Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20 (01) 7-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schwartz PH, Caine K, Alpert SA, Meslin EM, Carroll AE, Tierney WM. Patient preferences in controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30 (Suppl. 01) S25-S30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Medford-Davis LN, Chang L, Rhodes KV. Health information exchange: what do patients want?. Health Informatics J 2017; 23 (04) 268-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Rosenbaum BP. Radio frequency identification (RFID) in health care: privacy and security concerns limiting adoption. J Med Syst 2014; 38 (03) 19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 1989; 13 (03) 319-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Layman EJ. Ethical issues and the electronic health record. Health Care Manag (Frederick) 2020; 39 (04) 150-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sulmasy LS, López AM, Horwitch CA. American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee. Ethical implications of the electronic health record: in the service of the patient. J Gen Intern Med 2017; 32 (08) 935-939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Halford S, Savage M. Reconceptualizing digital social inequality. Inf Commun Soc 2010; 13 (07) 937-955
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 United States Census Bureau. Top languages other than English spoken in 1980 and changes in relative rank, 1990–2010. Published February 14, 2013. Accessed June 8, 2021 at: https://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/045/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Schneider T, Baum L, Amy A, Marisa C. I have most of my asthma under control and I know how my asthma acts: users' perceptions of asthma self-management mobile app tailored for adolescents. Health Informatics J 2020; 26 (01) 342-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Forbes G, Newton S, Cantalapiedra Calvete C. et al. MEMPHIS: a smartphone app using psychological approaches for women with chronic pelvic pain presenting to gynaecology clinics: a randomised feasibility trial. BMJ Open 2020; 10 (03) e030164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Guerra-Reyes L, Christie VM, Prabhakar A, Siek KA. Mind the gap: assessing the disconnect between postpartum health information desired and health information received. Womens Health Issues 2017; 27 (02) 167-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Khoong EC, Le G, Hoskote M, Rivadeneira N, Hiatt RA, Sarkar U. Health information seeking behaviors and preferences of a diverse multi-lingual cohort. Med Care 2019; 57 (Suppl 6, 2): S176-S183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Rhoades H, Wenzel S, Rice E, Winetrobe H, Henwood B. No digital divide? Technology use among homeless adults. J Soc Distress Homeless 2017; 26 (01) 73-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Giesler MA. The collaboration between homeless shelters and public libraries in addressing homelessness: a multiple case study. J Libr Admin 2019; 59 (01) 18-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kaikkonen A, Kallio T, Kekäläinen A, Kankainen A, Cankar M. Usability testing of mobile applications: a comparison between laboratory and field testing. J Usability Stud 2005; 1 (01) 4-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Consent2Share. Welcome to Consent2Share (C2S) on GitHub!. Accessed October 1, 2021 at: https://bhits.github.io/consent2share/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care–an interactive sociotechnical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14 (05) 542-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar