journal article·2022-03-23Open access

Multidimensional Study on Users’ Evaluation of the KRAKEN Personal Data Sharing Platform

Silvia Gabrielli, Silvia Rizzi, Oscar Mayora, Stefan More, Juan Carlos Pérez Baun, Wim Vandevelde

Applied Sciences· Volume 12· Issue 7

Abstract

Background: Recent advances in the design of blockchain-based personal data sharing platforms bring the benefit of empowering users with more control and privacy-preserving measures in sharing data products. However, so far very little is known about users’ intentions to adopt such platforms for providing or consuming data products. Objective: This study aims to investigate users’ main expectations, preferences, and concerns regarding the adoption of blockchain-based personal data sharing platforms in the health and education domains. Methods: Fifteen participants were involved in a multidimensional evaluation of a prototyped release of the KRAKEN blockchain-based data sharing platform and asked to assess it in the health or education pilot domains. Data collected during online group interviews with participants were analyzed by applying the micro interlocutor technique to provide a descriptive overview of participant responses. Results: Participants showed a marginal acceptance of the prototype usability, asking for some improvements of the user experience and for a more transparent presentation of the platform security and privacy preserving capabilities. Participants expressed interest in using the platform as data providers and consumers as well as setting privacy policies for sharing data products with third parties, including the possibility of revoking access to data. Conclusions: Blockchain-based data sharing platforms are more likely to engage target users when technical design is informed by a deeper knowledge of their needs, expectations, and relevant concerns.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Privacy, Security, and Data Protection · Technology Adoption and User Behaviour · FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Digital Health Lab, Fondazione Bruno Kessler, 38123 Trento, Italy

Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications, Faculty of Computer Science, Graz University of Technology, 8010 Graz, Austria

ATOS Spain S.A., 08024 Madrid, Spain

KU Leuven Centre for IT & IP Law–Imec, Catholic University of Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

Funding

European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme

References (26)

Show source-provided references
1. Travizano, M., Sarraute, C., Dolata, M., French, A.M., and Treiblmaier, H. (2020). Wibson: A case study of a decentralized, privacy-preserving data marketplace. Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology Use Cases, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-44337-5_8 ↗
2. Consumers’ Intentions to Adopt Blockchain-Based Personal Health Records and Data Sharing: Focus Group Study10.2196/21995 ↗
3. A Ledger of Me: Personalizing Healthcare Using Blockchain Technology10.3389/fmed.2019.00171 ↗
4. Blockchain: A Panacea for Healthcare Cloud-Based Data Security and Privacy?10.1109/MCC.2018.011791712 ↗
5. Accelerating Health Data Sharing: A Solution Based on the Internet of Things and Distributed Ledger Technologies10.2196/13583 ↗
6. An Architecture and Management Platform for Blockchain-Based Personal Health Record Exchange: Development and Usability Study10.2196/16748 ↗
7. Comparison of consumers’ views on electronic data sharing for healthcare and research10.1093/jamia/ocv014 ↗
8. Lemieux, V. (2021, December 21). COVID-19, Technology and Data Privacy: A Call to Action for Governments. University of British Columbia Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies. 2 June 2020. Available online: https://covidprivacy.pwias.ubc.ca/sites/covidprivacy.pwias.ubc.ca/files/documents/Policy%20Brief-4.0_FINAL.pdf.
9. Public preferences about secondary uses of electronic health information10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9166 ↗
10. Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001023 ↗
11. Blockchain distributed ledger technologies for biomedical and health care applications10.1093/jamia/ocx068 ↗
12. Blockchain-based platforms for genomic data sharing: A de-centralized approach in response to the governance problems?10.1093/jamia/ocy149 ↗
13. Ekblaw, A., Azaria, A., Halamka, J., and Lippman, A. (2016, January 22–24). A Case Study for Blockchain in Healthcare: “MedRec” prototype for electronic health records and medical research data. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Open & Big Data, Vienna, Austria. Available online: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59aae5e9a803bb10bedeb03e/t/5a6fd2f7e2c48387dff12676/1517278000381/blockchain-medical-records-patient-data-medrec-eckblaw.pdf.
14. Comparison of blockchain platforms: A systematic review and healthcare examples10.1093/jamia/ocy185 ↗
15. Interactive systems for patient-centered care to enhance patient engagement10.1093/jamia/ocv198 ↗
16. (2021, December 22). H2020 KRAKEN Project. Available online: https://www.krakenh2020.eu/.
17. Abraham, A., Perez Baun, J.C., Ramacher, S., and KRAKEN-Brokerage and Market Platform for Personal Data (2021, December 22). ERCIM NEWS, 126 09 July 2021, Special theme: Privacy Preserving Computation. Available online: https://ercim-news.ercim.eu/en126/special/kraken-brokerage-and-market-platform-for-personal-data.
18. Gabrielli, S., Krenn, S., Pellegrino, D., Perez Baun, J.C., Perez Berganza, P., Ramacher, S., and Vandevelde, W. (2021). KRAKEN: A secure, trusted, regulatory compliant and privacy-preserving data sharing platform. Data Platforms 2021 BDVA, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-98636-0_6 ↗
19. SUS—A retrospective
20. Kempf-Leonard, K. (2005). Focus groups. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, Elsevier.
21. A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research10.1177/160940690900800301 ↗
22. Focus group interviews in nursing research: Part 110.12968/bjon.2013.22.1.16 ↗
23. Sauro, J. (2021, December 22). Measuring Usability with the System Usability Scale (SUS). Available online: https://measuringu.com/sus/.
24. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective ratingscale
25. Agarwal, R., Kumar, D., Golab, L., and Keshav, S. (2020, January 2–6). Consentio: Managing consent to data access using permissioned blockchains. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), Toronto, ON, Canada.10.1109/ICBC48266.2020.9169432 ↗
26. Health-Information Altruists—A Potentially Critical Resource10.1056/NEJMsb051220 ↗