Privacy Management in eHealth Using Contextual Consenting

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.

Keywords

consent contextual consenting consent intermediary privacy eHealth AI

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: AI in eHealth
Human Autonomy, Data Governance and Privacy in Healthcare
, pp. 125 - 146
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108921923.009 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andreassen, T and others, ‘Linking Service Design to Value Creation and Service Research’ (2016) 27(1) Journal of Service Management 21–29.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cozy Cloud, Cozy cloud website, https://cozy.io/en/, accessed 30 April 2020.Google 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

Digi.me, Digi.me website, https://digi.me, accessed 30 April 2020.Google Scholar

European Commission, Data Protection. Special Eurobarometer (431) (2015).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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Heinonen, K and others, ‘A Customer-Dominant Logic of Service’ (2010) 21(4) Journal of Service Management 531–48.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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

Meeco, Meeco website, https://meeco.me, accessed 30 April 2020.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

Sundbo, J and Toivonen, M, User-Based Innovation in Services (Edward Elgar 2011).Google Scholar

Sunstein, CR, ‘The Ethics of Nudging’ (2015) 32 Yale Journal on Regulation 413–50.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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Book contents

5 - Privacy Management in eHealth Using Contextual Consenting

Summary