Book contents
- AI in eHealth
- Cambridge Bioethics and Law
- AI in eHealth
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acronyms
- 1 Mapping the Digital Healthcare Revolution
- Part I Platforms, Apps and Digital Health
- Part II Trust and Design
- 5 Privacy Management in eHealth Using Contextual Consenting
- 6 Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection Law
- 7 AI Technologies and Accountability in Digital Health
- Part III Knowledge, Risk and Control
- Part IV Balancing Regulation, Innovation and Ethics
- Index
- Cambridge Bioethics and Law
- References
5 - Privacy Management in eHealth Using Contextual Consenting
from Part II - Trust and Design
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 September 2022
Book contents
- AI in eHealth
- Cambridge Bioethics and Law
- AI in eHealth
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acronyms
- 1 Mapping the Digital Healthcare Revolution
- Part I Platforms, Apps and Digital Health
- Part II Trust and Design
- 5 Privacy Management in eHealth Using Contextual Consenting
- 6 Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection Law
- 7 AI Technologies and Accountability in Digital Health
- Part III Knowledge, Risk and Control
- Part IV Balancing Regulation, Innovation and Ethics
- Index
- Cambridge Bioethics and Law
- References
Summary
Sharing one’s health data with one’s doctor can be an important factor in improving one’s own health, and sharing the data for scientific research can help improve the everyone’s health. At the same time, health data is highly confidential, so the sharing process must provide sufficient control over one’s privacy. Legally, sharing is often based on consent, which theoretically affords extensive individual control, but in practice often requires processing complicated information. Therefore, the way the consenting process is implemented plays a significant role in either hindering or helping the individual. This chapter explores how individuals’ ability to make informed consent decisions can be simplified by utilising AI-based recommendations with the consent intermediary approach and by making the consenting decisions in the context of utilising the health data thus making the individuals more aware of the data they are sharing.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- AI in eHealthHuman Autonomy, Data Governance and Privacy in Healthcare, pp. 125 - 146Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Andreassen, T and others, ‘Linking Service Design to Value Creation and Service Research’ (2016) 27(1) Journal of Service Management 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettencourt, L, Service Innovation: How to Go from Customer Needs to Breakthrough Services (McGraw-Hill 2010).Google Scholar
Carlborg, P, Kindström, D and Kowalkowski, C, ‘The Evolution of Service Innovation Research: A Critical Review and Synthesis’ (2014) 34(5) The Service Industries Journal 373–98.Google Scholar
Chaudhry, A and others, ‘Personal Data: Thinking Inside the Box’ (2015) 1(1) Aarhus Series on Human Centered Computing, https://doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21312, accessed 12 March 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Montjoyeya, Y-A and others, ‘OpenPDS: Protecting the Privacy of Netadata through SafeAnswers’ (2014) 9(7) PloS One e98790, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098790.Google Scholar
Design Council, ‘What Is the Framework for Innovation? Design Council’s Evolved Double Diamond’ (2015), www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond, accessed 30 April 2020.Google Scholar
European Union, ‘Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council’ (2016) L119 Official Journal of the European Union 1–88.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G and Selten, R, Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox (MIT Press 2001).Google Scholar
Grönroos, C, ‘Value Co-creation in Service Logic: A Critical Analysis’ (2011) 11(3) Marketing Theory 279–301.Google Scholar
Grönroos, C and Voima, P, ‘Critical Service Logic: Making Sense of Value Creations and Co-creation’ (2013) 41(2) Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 133–50.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, A, Kristensson, P and Witell, L, ‘Customer Co‐creation in Service Innovation: A Matter of Communication?’ (2012) 23(3) Journal of Service Management 311–27, https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231211248426, accessed 12 March 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinonen, K and others, ‘A Customer-Dominant Logic of Service’ (2010) 21(4) Journal of Service Management 531–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinonen, K and Strandvik, T, ‘Customer-Dominant Logic: Foundations and Implications’ (2015) 29(6/7) Journal of Services Marketing 472–84.Google Scholar
Heinonen, K and Strandvik, T, ‘Reflections on Customers’ Primary Role in Markets’ (2018) 36(1) European Management Journal 1–11.Google Scholar
Heinonen, K, Strandvik, T and Voima, P, ‘Customer Dominant Value Formation in Service’ (2013) 25(2) European Business Review 104–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hub of All Things, Hub of All Things GitHub page, https://github.com/Hub-of-all-Things, accessed 30 April 2020.Google Scholar
Keinonen, T, Vaajakallio, K and Honkonen, J (eds), Designing for Wellbeing (Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture 2013).Google Scholar
Kortesniemi, Y and Kremer, J, ‘Recommendations and Automation in the Consenting Process: Designing GDPR compliant consents’, Paper presented at Legal Design as Academic Discipline: Foundations, Methodology, Applications (Groningen, Netherlands 2018).Google Scholar
Kortesniemi, Y, Lappalainen, T and Salka, F, ‘User Attitudes towards Consent Intermediaries’, Paper presented at Legal Design as Academic Discipline: Foundations, Methodology, Applications (Groningen, Netherlands 2018).Google Scholar
Lehtiranta, L, Junnonen, J, Kärnä, S and Pekuri, L and others, ‘The Constructive Research Approach: Problem Solving for Complex Projects’ in Pasian, B (ed), Designs, Methods and Practices for Research of Project Management (Gower Applied Business Research 2015).Google Scholar
Lehtiniemi, T and Kortesniemi, Y, ‘Can the Obstacles to Privacy Self-Management Be Overcome? Exploring the Consent Intermediary Approach’ (2017) 4(2) Big Data and Society 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, B and others, ‘Follow My Recommendations: A Personalized Privacy Assistant for Mobile App Permissions’ in Proceedings of the 12th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, Denver, USA, 22–24 June (USENIX 2016).Google Scholar
Lusch, RF and Vargo, SL, Service-Dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities (Cambridge University Press 2014).Google Scholar
McDonald, A and Cranor, LF, ‘The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies’ (2008) I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society.Google Scholar
Miettinen, S, ‘Designing Services with Innovative Methods’ in Miettinen, S and Koivisto, M (eds), Designing Services with Innovative Methods. University of Art and Design & Kuopio Academy of Design. Taideteollisen korkeakoulun julkaisusarja, B. Taitemia (Otava Book Printing 2009).Google Scholar
Mirsch, T, Lehrer, C and Jung, R, ‘Digital Nudging: Altering User Behavior in Digital Environments’ in Proceedings of 13. Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI, St Gallen, Switzerland 2017).Google Scholar
Poikola, A, Kuikkaniemi, K and Honko, H, ‘MyData – A Nordic Model for Human-Centered Personal Data Management and Processing’ (Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications 2015).Google Scholar
Prahalad, CK and Ramaswamy, V, ‘Co-creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation’ (2004) 18(3) Journal of Interactive Marketing 5–14.Google Scholar
Ramaswamy, V, ‘It’s about Human Experiences … and Beyond, to Co-creation’ (2011) 40, Industrial Marketing Management 195–96.Google Scholar
Solove, DJ, ‘Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma’ (2013) 126(7) Harvard Law Review 1880–1903.Google Scholar
Stickdorn, M and others, This Is Service Design Doing: Applying Service Design Thinking in the Real World: A Practitioner’s Handbook’ (O’Reilly Media 2018).Google Scholar
Thaler, RH and Sunstein, CR, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Penguin Books 2009).Google Scholar
Turow, J, Hennessy, M and Draper, N, The Tradeoff Fallacy. How Marketers Are Misrepresenting American Consumers and Opening Them Up to Exploitation. A Report from the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania (2015).Google Scholar
Vaajakallio, K and Mattelmäki, T, ‘Yhteissuunnittelu avaa uusia näkymiä julkiselle sektorille’ in Keinonen, T, Vaajakallio, K and Honkonen, J (eds), Hyvinvoinnin muotoilu, Helsinki: Aalto-yliopiston taiteiden ja suunnittelun korkeakoulu (Aalto Arts Books 2013).Google Scholar
van Aaken, A, ‘Judge the Nudge: In Search of the Legal Limits of Paternalistic Nudging in the EU’ in Alemanno, A and Sibony, AL (eds), Nudge and the Law: A European Perspective (Hart Publishing 2015).Google Scholar
Vargo, SL and Lusch, RF, ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing’ (January 2014) 68 Journal of Marketing 1–17.Google Scholar
Vargo, SL and Lusch, RF, ‘Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution’ (2008) 36 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1–10.Google Scholar
Vargo, SL, Maglio, PP and Akaka, MA, ‘On Value and Value Co-creation: A Service Systems and Service Logic Perspective’ (2008) 26(3) European Management Journal 145–52.Google Scholar
Wachter, S, ‘Privacy: Primus Inter Pares – Privacy as a Precondition for Self-Development, Personal Fulfilment and the Free Enjoyment of Fundamental Human Rights’, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2903514, accessed 30 April 2020.Google Scholar
Yu, E and Sangiorgi, D, ‘Service Design As an Approach to Implement the Value Cocreation Perspective in New Service Development’ (2018) 21(1) Journal of Service Research 40–58.Google Scholar
Zuboff, S, ‘Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization’ (2015) 30(1) Journal of Information Technology 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar