Skip to main content
NCBI home page
AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings logoLink to AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings
. 2021 Jan 25;2020:840–849.

Why Should I Trust You? Supporting the Sharing of Health Data in the Interprofessional Space of Child Development

Sean P Mikles 1, Lauren E Snyder 2, Julie A Kientz 2, Anne M Turner 2
PMCID: PMC8075435  PMID: 33936459

Abstract

Many stakeholders can be involved in supporting a child’s development, including parents, pediatricians, and educators. These stakeholders struggle to collaborate, and experts suggest that health information technology could improve their communication. Trust, based on perceptions of competence, benevolence, and integrity is fundamental to supporting information sharing, so information technologies should address trust between stakeholders. We engaged 75 parents and 60 healthcare workers with two surveys to explore this topic. We first elicited the types of information parents and healthcare workers use to form perceptions of competence, benevolence, and integrity. We then designed and tested user profile prototypes listing the elicited information to see if it builds trust in previously unknown professionals. We discovered that providing information related to personal characteristics, relationships, professional experience, and workplace practices can support trust and the sharing of information. This work has implications for designing informative electronic user interfaces to support interprofessional trust.

Introduction

Monitoring a child’s physical, mental, and cognitive development involves the efforts of many adult caregivers in the child’s life. Factors related to a child’s biology, life experience, and their environment can cause delays in the acquisition of fundamental abilities such as language skills, cognition, and emotional regulation1. Without early intervention these delays can persist and become chronic developmental disabilities2 that can affect a child’s entire life course, negatively impacting their financial earnings, health status, and social relations3.

Many stakeholders invested in the wellbeing and care of children, such as parents, pediatricians, and early educators play a fundamental role in identifying developmental delays and supporting early intervention4. Unfortunately these stakeholders and their services are not well-integrated, which places a significant burden on parents to undertake the coordination of activities across care settings5. Pediatricians and early educators specifically often undertake overlapping responsibilities caring for a child’s development, such as administering screening tests, monitoring behaviors, and providing therapeutic services2,6,7. Strengthening coordination between the medical home and early education services is a promising approach to improving the identification and treatment of childhood developmental delays and disabilities8–11. Furthermore, policymakers have identified health information technology (HIT) as an important ingredient in supporting connections across a child’s medical home12, and clinicians have also advocated for the expanded use of HIT to aid in the coordination of care for children with complex needs13,14. Unfortunately, many existing HIT systems, such as electronic health records (EHRs), do not support collaborative work that spans professional boundaries15–17, indicating a need for the design of new systems to support interprofessional collaboration.

Trust and Collaboration

Many factors can impact the effectiveness of collaborative work in healthcare18. Factors that influence the use of HIT systems in collaborative endeavors range from user workflows to the collaborators’ work environments18,19. Trust between potential collaborators has been identified as a necessity to encourage different stakeholders to work together20,21, and has received increasing attention in the biomedical informatics field22–26. Trust has been defined as the voluntary expectation of a ‘trustor’ that another entity, deemed a ‘trustee’, will fulfill an obligation to the trustor, and where failure to fulfill the obligation brings a level of risk21. Foundational research by Mayer et al.27 found that a trustor will believe a trustee to be trustworthy if they are perceived as possessing competence, benevolence, and integrity. Competence is the ability to act effectively in a given domain, benevolence is motivation to do positive things for the trustor, and integrity refers to the trustee maintaining an acceptable set of principles to guide their actions27. Our previous research exploring data sharing in the domain of child development found that perceptions of trustworthiness affected whether information was shared and its perceived credibility28. The findings supported the notion that child development stakeholders often judge each other’s trustworthiness based on perceptions of competence, benevolence, and integrity based on indicators such as reputation or professional training28. Professionals involved in supporting a child’s development, such as pediatricians and teachers, have difficulty judging each other’s trustworthiness28 since they do not often interact5,29. Previous work in designing HIT tools to foster interprofessional collaboration to support children with complex healthcare needs has focused on information needs30, work processes13, data standards31, and managing care team members32 but not the maintenance of trust.

Research on trust in online spaces indicates that providing key details about an unknown person through an electronic interface may support perceptions of trustworthiness. Stuart et al.33 propose that “identity transparency”, or the visibility of the identities of people exchanging information, can change the way that people interact with each other online. Transparency around the identities parties exchanging information—such as names, demographic information, and group memberships—could support perceptions of credibility and trustworthiness33. Research also indicates that the separate perceptions of competence, benevolence, and integrity can affect different trusting behaviors34, and that they can affect the overall perceptions of trustworthiness within virtual teams that communicate solely through technology35. Determining how to best support trust in an online context is difficult, however, since the assessment of trustworthiness can depend on the context of work and even the demographics of the people involved34. Unfortunately, little research has elicited how potential users of HIT conceptualize and operationalize trust to guide designers who want to build a consideration of trust into HIT systems. Additionally, experts in supporting trust through online tools have suggested that more research is needed to determine how textual information can be used to build trust34.

To support collaborative child development work through the design of new collaborative HIT tools, this research took a user-centered approach to exploring perceptions of trust amongst parents and healthcare workers and designed prototype user profile web pages to provide identity transparency and support trust. Our goals were to answer the following research questions:

  1. How do parents and healthcare workers conceptualize competence, benevolence, and integrity?

  2. Does the presentation of information related to a stakeholder’s competence, benevolence, and integrity support the sharing and usage of information related to a child’s development?

  3. How do user characteristics affect perceptions of trustworthiness?

This research contributes an empirical understanding of how stakeholders in the child development space think about trust, and artifact designs for how aspects of competence, benevolence, and integrity might be integrated into HIT. The results of this study can inform the design of tools that share information about previously unknown professionals involved in a child’s care so that they can more effectively collaborate in supporting a child’s development.

Methods

This research undertakes multiple steps of a user-centered design cycle to understand user needs, produce potential solutions, and evaluate those solutions36 by utilizing two rounds of surveys and a round of prototype generation (see Figure 1 for the flow of the study). The first-round surveys aimed to discover the information needs of potential parent and healthcare professional users of a collaborative HIT child development support system to help them evaluate a potential collaborator’s competence, benevolence, and integrity. We then used the results to create low-fidelity user profile prototypes containing different combinations of information identified in the first survey. We then administered our second-round surveys to test whether these profile prototypes support trust and the sharing of information. To explore the potential differences in trust perceptions based on stakeholder role, our respondent ‘trustors’ consisted of 1) parents and 2) pediatric healthcare professionals. These respondents were asked to judge the trustworthiness of two groups of ‘trustee’s’: a) pediatricians and family physicians, and b) preschool educators. These trustee’s were chosen to explore how parents and healthcare professionals view key stakeholders employed both inside and outside of the healthcare field. Question concepts and wording were derived from the results of a previous qualitative exploration of trust between child development stakeholders28. Questionnaires were distributed through SurveyGizmo and were piloted by graduate students in biomedical informatics and human-centered design at the University of Washington to check the clarity of the survey language. This research was approved by the Institution Review Board at the University of Washington.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Study design flow. The letters C, B, and I in the prototypes above represent different combinations of information related to ‘competence’, ‘benevolence’, and ‘integrity’.

Parents and healthcare professionals were recruited for both surveys through the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform. Research suggests that the MTurk worker population provides a similar demographic distribution to the general US population37. A two-stage MTurk recruitment strategy suggested by Wessling et al. was adopted to mitigate the impact of dishonest responses38. Potential participants were initially screened by a basic demographic questionnaire asking questions about age, gender, race and ethnicity, state of residence, educational attainment, the number of children they have and their ages, and whether any of their children have had a developmental delay or disability, as previous research has suggested that factors like ethnicity and educational status can affect trust in online health resources25. Healthcare workers were also asked for a job title, the age range of the people they regularly serve, a description of how they interact with children and families, and whether they regularly care for children with developmental disabilities. The screening questionnaire for healthcare workers was only available to MTurk users who had an MTurk profession qualifier indicating they worked in healthcare. The inclusion criteria for parents was recent experience raising a child under 5 years of age, and the criteria for healthcare professionals was working with patients under 5 years in an outpatient setting. Experience with children younger than 5 years was chosen due to the importance of a child’s development during that time period1. Respondents were excluded if they were under 18 years of age or resided outside of the United States. Screening survey results were reviewed, and eligible respondents were assembled into a panel that was eligible to participate in the subsequent surveys. Healthcare professional recruitment was supplemented by sending recruitment e-mails to electronic mailing lists maintained by pediatric professional organizations in Washington State. Respondents were provided a small honorarium for participation in the study.

For the first-round survey, respondents were presented with two sets of questions related to perceptions of trust: one set related to their perceptions of doctors, and one set for perceptions of teachers. Respondents were asked to imagine a webpage with information about a doctor or teacher they had not previously met and provide three ranked lists of information they would like to see on that webpage to help them judge whether the given professional had competence to support child development (operationalized as having the “knowledge, skills, and abilities”), benevolence towards a child and their family (“caring”), or integrity in their work (being “consistent, reliable, and unbiased”), respectively. All responses were free-text to allow the respondents to describe their information needs in their own words. These lists could contain up to three responses which were given a rank value ranging from 3 (top entry) to 1 (bottom entry). Using a purely inductive approach, the primary author (SM) reviewed all responses and grouped them into types of information sought, and information types were then organized into broader themes. A randomized collection of half of the responses were independently analyzed by a colleague (LS) to evaluate the validity of the themes, and a final set of themes was assembled through discussion. Survey responses were grouped into the defined information types and themes, and rank values were summed for each of the three trust perceptions to identify the most important information types for each perception.

The top three information types associated with each trust perception were used to create low-fidelity informational prototypes using Microsoft PowerPoint. We created 16 prototype informational webpages displaying information about a hypothetical child developmental stakeholder (see Figure 2). These designs fulfilled a full 2^4 factorial design for testing based on the following factors: trustee profession (healthcare or education), and whether or not the webpage listed information related to competence, benevolence, or integrity. When portraying each trust perception, the page either listed all of the top three information types (a ‘high’ level of information) or none of them (a ‘low’ level).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

User information prototypes. The prototype on the left depicts a doctor with information portraying competence, benevolence, and integrity. The prototype on the right depicts a teacher with no information pertaining to competence, benevolence, or integrity.

For the second-round survey, participants were sequentially presented with all 16 prototypes in a random order and prompted to answer questions about whether they promote trust in the person portrayed in the prototype. All respondents were given instructions to read each prototype for at least 15 seconds, imagining that they represent professionals that they had not previously met, and were asked to rate their agreement with the following two statements:

  1. Providing information: “I could trust them to provide me with accurate and useful information about child development.”

  2. Using information: “I could trust them to appropriately and effectively use information I share with them about child development.”

Agreement was measured with a four-response Likert scale: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree. The lack of a neutral response prompted respondents to pick a positive or negative answer. Cumulative logits regression models containing the question type (providing or using), prototype features, and respondent demographics were fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) in SAS to determine which factors were associated with higher agreement with the trust statements. The GEE procedure was chosen to account for correlated data due to repeated measures. The model initially included all variables and we sequentially removed variables above a p-value of 0.05. The model with the smallest difference between the QIC and QICu fit statistics was chosen as the final model.

Results

In the first-round survey, participants reported 417 responses for competence, 353 responses for benevolence, and 338 for integrity. Table 1 provides a summary of the respondents for both surveys. Across both surveys, 23% of the healthcare professionals were doctors, 43% were nurses, and 33% were medical assistants or allied professionals.

Table 1.

Aggregate demographics for study participants, split by recruitment group and survey answered.

Survey 1 Survey 2
Demographics Parents Healthcare Professionals Parents Healthcare Professionals
Sample Size 45 35 30 25
Age (average) 40.2 38.5 35.5 38.9
Gender (female, number and %) 36 (80%) 25 (70%) 27 (90%) 17 (68%)
Has children (number and %) 45 (100%) 27 (78%) 30 (100%) 18 (72%)
Hispanic (number and %) 6 (12%) 2 (6%) 3 (10%) 2 (8%)
Non-white race (number and %) 7 (16%) 5 (14%) 5 (17%) 3 (12%)
Received college degree (number and %) 28 (62%) 32 (91%) 24 (80%) 23 (92%)
Service Professional Information
Profession:
Nurse (number and %)
Doctor (number and %)
Other (number and %) (audiologist, therapists, rehabilitation counselor, psychologist, medical assistant)		 14 (40%)
9 (27%)
12 (34%)		 12 (48%)
5 (20%)
8 (32%)
Experience serving children with developmental disabilities (number and %) 34 (97%) 24 (96%)
Open in a new tab

Analysis of the responses produced 23 different types of information encompassed by six themes: demonstrating skills, personal characteristics, third party trust, training, work experience, and workplace practices. Table 2 lists the final themes, theme descriptions, and the information types included in each theme. While there was overlap between the types of information reported for competence, benevolence, and integrity, the summed response rank values suggested some associations. Information related to third-party trust (most notably certifications), training (degrees earned), and work experience (work history) were most often reported for competence. For benevolence, the most reported responses were personal characteristics (personality and values) and third-party trust (reviews). For integrity, subjects most often reported third party trust (reviews), personal characteristics (values), and workplace practices (accessibility). Reviews scored highly for both benevolence and integrity, but the responses reported for each tended to differ, with language related to families, caring, and kindness being more associated to benevolence and language related to reliability and cultural sensitivity being more often reported for integrity.

Table 2.

Themes of information that respondents use to judge trustworthiness, and associated information types

Theme Description Types of Information
Demonstration of Skills Characteristics indicating that the trustee has skills and knowledge relevant to a domain area

  • Communicates clearly

  • Professional service outside of the workplace

  • Positive results from previous work, past work successes

  • Detailed knowledge of obscure, specialized topics
Personal Characteristics Information pertaining to the trustee’s personal life

  • Demographics, family, and background information

  • Social disposition or personality traits

  • Pictures of the trustee or work environment

  • What the trustee values, and what they think is important
Third Party Trust Trust based on the trustee’s relationships with other people and organizations

  • Affiliation with schools, companies, or professional groups

  • Receiving rewards from third-party organizations

  • Certification of skills from third-party organizations

  • Reviews/ratings from clients, peers, and the community
Training Formal educational training and professionalization in a relevant field

  • Academic degrees in a relevant field

  • Receiving training in a relevant subspecialty

  • Descriptions of training, such as years in school and grades

  • Regular participation in continuing education activities
Work Experience Information about the course of a trustee’s career

  • Work history, years in field

  • Working with diverse client populations
Workplace Practices Information related to the policies and procedures practiced in the trustee’s place of work

  • Ease of accessing services

  • Having a team to support clients

  • Use of technology and internet tools to communicate

  • Listing work rules and policies

  • Scope of services provided
Open in a new tab

While there was overlap between the types of information reported for competence, benevolence, and integrity, the summed response rank values identified some associations. Information related to third-party trust (most notably certifications), training (degrees earned), and work experience (work history) were most often reported for competence. For benevolence, the most reported responses were personal characteristics (personality and values) and third-party trust (reviews). For integrity, subjects most often reported third party trust (reviews), personal characteristics (values), and workplace practices (accessibility). Reviews scored highly for both benevolence and integrity, but the responses reported for each tended to differ, with language related to families, caring, and kindness being more associated to benevolence and language related to reliability and cultural sensitivity being more often reported for integrity.

Types of information that received high rank scores in the first survey were used to create prototypes with varying information to be evaluated by a second round of surveys. Table 3 lists the top three types of information associated with competence, benevolence, and integrity, organized by theme, and how the information types were operationalized for the prototypes. Every prototype listed the profession and name of a hypothetical doctor or educator, a work address and phone number, and an icon representing a picture of the hypothetical professional. Different types of information were then added to prototypes depending on the perceptions of trust that the prototype was meant to portray. Reviews from parents were used to portray both benevolence and integrity. To differentiate the reviews related to benevolence from those related to integrity, the reviews contained different language reflecting information types relevant to each perception as reported in the first survey: 1) language related to involving families in decision-making for benevolence and 2) language related to reliability and cultural sensitivity for integrity. Figure 2 displays two examples of prototypes: one for a doctor with high levels of competence, benevolence, and integrity, and one for a teacher that contains no information related to the three trust perceptions.

Table 3.

Operationalization of the information types used in the prototypes, listing the top three information types ranked as important for portraying competence, benevolence, and integrity, organized by theme.

Competence
Information Themes: How they were operationalized:
Work Experience Years working
Third Party Trust Board certification for doctors, and National Association for the Education of Young Children certification for educators
Training MD for doctors, MEd or MA for educators;
Pediatrics specialization for doctors, early or special education for teachers
Benevolence
Information Themes: How they were operationalized:
Third Party Trust Section with positive reviews
Personal Characteristics Personal statement section with language around involving the family in care, noting local roots in the community;
Reviews contained language about being family-oriented, friendly, and caring
Integrity
Information Themes: How they were operationalized:
Third Party Trust Section with positive reviews
Personal Characteristics Reviews contained language about being reliable and culturally sensitive
Workplace Practices Extended contact information section with buttons to contact provider; Reviews noted the existence of language services
Open in a new tab

Table 4 lists the results of the final cumulative logits model. The model did not discern any significant effects based on trustor type (parent or healthcare professional), trustee type (pediatricians and family doctors, or early educators), or whether the trust statement was related to a trustee ‘providing’ information, or ‘using’ information. The display of information related to competence, benevolence, and integrity had significant effects on agreement with the statements related to trust. Viewing information related to competence led to a 3.3-fold increase in the odds of higher agreement with statements related to trust. When viewing information related to benevolence there was a 3.13-fold increase, and viewing information related to integrity led to a 2.14-fold increase. The model, however, found significant interaction effects between trust perceptions. When competence and integrity were simultaneously listed, or when benevolence and integrity were simultaneously listed, the odds of higher agreement with the trust statements was attenuated and lower than the combinations of both perceptions separately. Demographic factors also had an effect on agreement with the trust statements. Increased age, male gender, having children, Hispanic ethnicity, and having a college degree all led to lower odds of agreeing that the people represented in the profiles were trustworthy.

Table 4.

Results of the cumulative logits model listing log-odds of having a higher level of agreement with statements related to trust with parameter estimates, standard errors, and p-values.

Prototype Feature Parameter Comparison Estimate SE P
Competence High level vs. Low level 1.2 0.12 <0.0001
Benevolence High level vs. Low level 1.14 0.09 <0.0001
Integrity High level vs. Low level 0.76 0.08 <0.0001
Competence * Integrity Both High vs. Both Low -0.11 0.06 <0.05
Benevolence * Integrity Both High vs. Both Low -0.57 0.07 <0.0001
Respondent Demographics Parameter Comparison Estimate SE P
Age Adding one subsequent year to age -0.02 0.01 <0.05
Gender Male vs. Female -0.35 0.09 <0.001
Has Children Has Children vs. Has No Children -0.46 0.14 <0.01
Ethnicity Hispanic vs. Not Hispanic -0.41 0.17 <0.05
Education Has College Degree vs. No Degree -0.32 0.13 <0.05
Open in a new tab

Discussion

Building on previous research exploring trust in the domain of child development support services, this research investigated how to apply the concepts of competence, benevolence, and integrity to support communication in the child development space. These concepts were considered through the user-centered, crowd-sourced ‘ideation’ of how to generate trust in child development stakeholders through online user interface prototypes and the subsequent evaluation of these prototypes. Our survey results provide a rich set of information that can be used to support trust through an informational user profile, and also indicate that providing information related to competence, benevolence, and integrity can have a significant effect on trust. Our results also suggest that personal characteristics of the trustor, such as age, gender, education, or having children, affect the assessment of trust. This is in line with the results of a recent review of trust in digital health technologies25. This review found that such sociodemographic factors could both positively and negatively affect the building of trust, which supports the notion that trust is specific to a certain context and dependent on the people, actions, and situations involved39. This indicates the importance of taking a user-centered approach to understanding how trust is assessed for different populations. For example, trustworthiness may be assessed differently for patients that are younger or older and who have different health conditions. Similarly, trustworthiness maybe assessed differently by patients than by caregivers.

This study bolsters results found in previous explorations of trust. The importance of ‘third-party’ trust related to reviews and organizational affiliations, as well as trust based on characteristics like personality and professional credentials, confirms Veinot et al.’s exploration of the creation of a system to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted illness22. Previous literature on trust in digital health technologies have recognized the importance of reputation on trust25. Research exploring trust and the use of telemedicine found that a patient’s trust in their provider was shaped by perceptions of competence and open communication, whereas a provider’s trust in their patients depended on values related to integrity, such as honesty23. Our expanded findings, which identify a wide range of information types that affect perceptions of trustworthiness, help to describe the complexity of how trust is perceived across professional boundaries. It also provides guidance on how different professionals can best present themselves when working with professions they have not worked with previously.

The summed ranking values for the different information types indicate which types of high-impact information supported trust. However, there was overlap in the types of information that were relevant to the different perceptions of trust. For example, ‘work history’ had sizeable scores across the three trust perceptions. This indicates that trust judgments may depend on an individual’s point of view. For example, one person may believe that attending a prestigious medical school speaks to a doctor’s competence, while another may think that it shows that they value hard work and that it therefore speaks to their integrity. Concepts relevant to benevolence and integrity, such as ‘values’ and ‘personality’, encompass a vast array of characteristics that may be difficult to convey in words or text. Previous research indicates that trust may rely heavily on perceptions that are formed through in-person interactions over time23,25,28,40, indicating that some factors must be directly experienced to affect perceptions of trust. Difficulty in conceptualizing the differences between concepts like ‘benevolence’ and ‘integrity’ in text form may also explain the negative interaction effects between those perceptions in our cumulative logits model. When both sets of information were present, respondents may not have made a distinction between the content of the reviews that were meant to convey benevolence and those that conveyed integrity.

Alternately, the negative interaction effects between different trust perceptions may suggest a relationship between the quantity of information presented and not solely the content of the information. Stuart’s concept of identity transparency posits various levels of transparency, starting with anonymity and increasing with the provision of more personal information, that would be associated with different levels of trust33. Previous research in trust has hypothesized that more information about the context of data exchange and the exchange partner could increase trust39. Prototypes that listed information pertaining to only one or none of the trust perceptions necessarily had less information listed overall than prototypes portraying two or three trust perceptions, and therefore may have appeared less transparent than the prototypes with more information. Since ‘benevolence’ and ‘integrity’ both relied on sections related to reviews, the seeming similarity in the quantity of information may have blunted the impact of displaying information related to both perceptions simultaneously.

Despite the potential utility of providing information about a professional to build trust, such information must be used in a principled way. In the first-round survey eliciting information needs, some respondents indicated their trust perceptions were related to potentially maladaptive characteristics such as a “willingness to treat unvaccinated children”, or the sharing of information that could be invasive of providers’ privacy such as detailed information about a provider’s family and personal life. Trust in these cases may be based on unreasonable expectations about a provider’s behaviors or the information that they are willing to share, indicating that the provider’s personal needs must be balanced with the patient’s information needs. Guidance on which information can generate trust could also be leveraged by malicious actors to distort their online persona and generate trust inappropriately, for example by claiming to have academic degrees they have not earned. Past literature has recognized this potential for manipulation as a ‘dark side of trust’39,41. However, the discovery of such manipulation can sever a trust relationship, and trust can be difficult to rebuild34,41,42. To maintain trust, the goal should be to present accurate information with the aim of providing others with the transparency they need to make their own judgments about their information exchange partners33.

This research has some limitations that suggest areas of future study. While steps were taken to decrease potentially biased responses from MTurk respondents, there is still the potential for MTurk respondents to misrepresent themselves demographically or provide stereotypical answers38. The results also suggest that social desirability may have biased respondent answers. For example, in the second-round survey 73% of answers were either ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’, which may indicate an aversion to criticizing the prototypes. This was partially addressed, however, by using a 4-response Likert scale and a cumulative logits model to compare higher versus lower agreement with statements related to trust, as opposed to agreement versus disagreement. More functional prototypes need to be tested in real-world situations to ensure that the effects seen in this study are truly reflective of how user profiles would function. Many healthcare professionals recruited from MTurk were assistant providers or allied health professionals who have not received the training or professionalization of doctors or nurses, and who may therefore use different criteria to judge trustworthiness than a more highly trained clinician. This diversity in the healthcare professional sample may explain why this study did not find differences in the assessment of trust based on trustor or trustee profession, contrary to prior research23. Further analysis to explore differences in trust perceptions by job role in a larger sample may be warranted. In the second-round survey we also did not assess which specific elements were beneficial or detrimental to the formation of trust since the main purpose was assessing the effects of the overall constructs of competence, benevolence, and integrity. Future research should explore these concepts on a more granular level.

Despite these limitations, the strength of this research is that responses about information related to trust were free text and not guided by predefined criteria. This allowed participants to provide their own unique views of trustworthiness, which led to a rich listing of relevant information. Operationalizing trust in terms of competence, benevolence, and integrity and not as a unidimensional construct also prompted multiple perspectives on trust.

Conclusion

This research engaged a diverse group of end users to generate and evaluate potential solutions to support trust in the interprofessional child development support space. The results of this study provide a robust, if interrelated, array of information types that people use to judge trustworthiness, encompassing information pertaining to a person’s skills, personal characteristics and values, and work practices. This work adds to the informatics literature by advancing knowledge on how to build interprofessional trust and adds to the child development literature by integrating an understanding of trust into the creation of new informatics tools specifically aimed towards child development stakeholders. This research provides guidance for system designers in the form of information elements that speak to a person’s trustworthiness and validation that user profiles can support the creation of trust. Based on our findings, we recommend that attributes of trust be incorporated into the design of HIT to support interprofessional work.

Figures & Table

References

  • 1.Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA, editors. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Council on Children With Disabilities Section on Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics Bright Futures Steering Committee, Medical Home Initiatives for Children With Special Needs Project Advisory Committee. Identifying infants and young children with developmental disorders in the medical home: an algorithm for developmental surveillance and screening. Pediatrics. 2006 Jul;118(1):405–20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-1231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Black MM, Walker SP, Fernald LCH, Andersen CT, DiGirolamo AM, Lu C, et al. Early childhood development coming of age: science through the life course. The Lancet. 2017 Jan;389(10064):77–90. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31389-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Children with Disabilities Care coordination in the medical home: integrating health and related systems of care for children with special health care needs. Pediatrics. 2005 Nov;116(5):1238–44. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-2070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mikles SP, Suh H, Kientz JA, Turner AM. The use of model constructs to design collaborative health information technologies: A case study to support child development. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2018 Oct 1;86:167–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2018.09.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nelson BB, Chung PJ, Forness SR, Pillado O, Savage S, DuPlessis HM, et al. Developmental and health services in head start preschools: a tiered approach to early intervention. Acad Pediatr. 2013 Mar;13(2):145–51. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2012.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cuomo B, Joosten A, Vaz S. Scoping review on noticing concerns in child development: a missing piece in the early intervention puzzle. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2019 Dec 29. pp. 1–10. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 8.Grant AR, Ebel BE, Osman N, Derby K, DiNovi C, Grow HM. Medical Home–Head Start Partnership to Promote Early Learning for Low-Income Children. Health Promotion Practice. 2019 May;20(3):429–35. doi: 10.1177/1524839918764894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nores M, Fernandez C. Building capacity in health and education systems to deliver interventions that strengthen early child development: Building capacity to deliver ECD interventions. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2018 May;1419(1):57–73. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Donoghue EA. Quality Early Education and Child Care From Birth to Kindergarten. Pediatrics. 2017 Aug;140(2) doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Adams RC, Tapia C. Early intervention, IDEA Part C services, and the medical home: collaboration for best practice and best outcomes. Pediatrics. 2013 Oct;132(4):e1073–88. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-2305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Council on Clinical Information Technology Health information technology and the medical home. Pediatrics. 2011 May;127(5):978–82. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-0454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Horsky J, Morgan SJ, Ramelson HZ. Coordination of care for complex pediatric patients: perspectives from providers and parents. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2014;2014:681–90. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Quigley L, Lacombe-Duncan A, Adams S, Hepburn CM, Cohen E. A qualitative analysis of information sharing for children with medical complexity within and across health care organizations. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:283. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.O’Malley AS, Grossman JM, Cohen GR, Kemper NM, Pham HH. Are electronic medical records helpful for care coordination? Experiences of physician practices. J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Mar;25(3):177–85. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1195-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vawdrey D, Wilcox L, Collins S, Feiner S, Mamykina O, Stein D, et al. Awareness of the Care Team in Electronic Health Records. Applied Clinical Informatics. 2011;2(4):395–405. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2011-05-RA-0034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chase DA, Ash JS, Cohen DJ, Hall J, Olson GM, Dorr DA. The EHR’s roles in collaboration between providers: A qualitative study. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2014;2014:1718–27. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Barr N, Vania D, Randall G, Mulvale G. Impact of information and communication technology on interprofessional collaboration for chronic disease management: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2017 Oct;22(4):250–7. doi: 10.1177/1355819617714292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Eikey EV, Reddy MC, Kuziemsky CE. Examining the role of collaboration in studies of health information technologies in biomedical informatics: A systematic review of 25 years of research. J Biomed Inform. 2015 Aug 8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 20.D’Amour D, Ferrada-Videla M, San Martin Rodriguez L, Beaulieu M-D. The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: core concepts and theoretical frameworks. J Interprof Care. 2005 May;1(19 Suppl):116–31. doi: 10.1080/13561820500082529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gilson L. Trust in health care: theoretical perspectives and research needs. J Health Organ Manag. 2006;20(5):359–75. doi: 10.1108/14777260610701768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Veinot TC, Campbell TR, Kruger DJ, Grodzinski A. A question of trust: user-centered design requirements for an informatics intervention to promote the sexual health of African-American youth. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Aug;20(4):758–65. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Van Velsen L, Wildevuur S, Flierman I, Van Schooten B, Tabak M, Hermens H. Trust in telemedicine portals for rehabilitation care: an exploratory focus group study with patients and healthcare professionals. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Jan 27;16:11. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0250-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kim Y. Trust in health information websites: A systematic literature review on the antecedents of trust. Health informatics journal. 2016;22(2):355–69. doi: 10.1177/1460458214559432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Adjekum A, Blasimme A, Vayena E. Elements of Trust in Digital Health Systems: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Dec 13;20(12):e11254. doi: 10.2196/11254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sillence E, Blythe JM, Briggs P, Moss M. A Revised Model of Trust in Internet-Based Health Information and Advice: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Nov 11;21(11):e11125. doi: 10.2196/11125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review. 1995;20(3):709–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mikles SP, Haldar S, Yin S-Y, Kientz JA, Turner AM. Trust and Sharing in an Interprofessional Environment: A Thematic Analysis From Child Development Support Work in the Community. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings; San Francisco, CA. 2018. pp. 1415–24. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Anderson LS. Mothers of children with special health care needs: documenting the experience of their children’s care in the school setting. J Sch Nurs. 2009 Oct;25(5):342–51. doi: 10.1177/1059840509334146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ranade-Kharkar P, Weir C, Norlin C, Collins SA, Scarton LA, Baker GB, et al. Information needs of physicians, care coordinators, and families to support care coordination of children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN) Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2017 Sep 1;24(5):933–41. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocx023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ranade-Kharkar P, Narus SP, Anderson GL, Conway T, Del Fiol G. Data standards for interoperability of care team information to support care coordination of complex pediatric patients. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2018 Sep 1;85:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2018.07.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ranade-Kharkar P, Norlin C, Del Fiol G. Formative Evaluation of Care Nexus: a Tool for the Visualization and Management of Care Teams of Complex Pediatric Patients. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2017;2017:1458–67. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Stuart HC, Dabbish L, Kiesler S, Kinnaird P, Kang R. Social transparency in networked information exchange: a theoretical framework. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM; 2012. pp. 451–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gefen D, Benbasat I, Pavlou P. A research agenda for trust in online environments. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2008;24(4):275–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Choi O-K, Cho E. The mechanism of trust affecting collaboration in virtual teams and the moderating roles of the culture of autonomy and task complexity. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019 Feb;91:305–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Maguire M. Methods to support human-centred design. International journal of human-computer studies. 2001;55(4):587–634. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG. Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making. 2010;5(5):411–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wessling KS, Huber J, Netzer O. MTurk character misrepresentation: Assessment and solutions. Journal of Consumer Research. 2017;44(1):211–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Connell NAD, Mannion R. Conceptualisations of trust in the organisational literature: some indicators from a complementary perspective. J Health Organ Manag. 2006;20(5):417–33. doi: 10.1108/14777260610701795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mercer K, Neiterman E, Guirguis L, Burns C, Grindrod K. “My pharmacist”: Creating and maintaining relationship between physicians and pharmacists in primary care settings. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2020 Jan;16(1):102–7. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.03.144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Blois KJ. Trust in business to business relationships: An evaluation of its status. Journal of management studies. 1999;36(2):197–215. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mechanic D. Public trust and initiatives for new health care partnerships. Milbank Q. 1998;76(2):281–302. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.00089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings are provided here courtesy of American Medical Informatics Association

RESOURCES