1

Dan Wanner
Professor Melina Probst
English Composition 2
2 November 2016
Source Comparison
With the vast number of resources available online, it is important to establish credibility
before trusting any authors writings. Because the internet has become such a ubiquitous
platform for communication, the majority of people posting online are not experts and rarely
provide evidence for their claims. Worse are those who portray their opinions as fact or contort
evidence to suit their narrative. Keeping this in mind along with an ounce of common sense, it is
understandable that Facebook posts and Reddit comments should not be the main source of
anyones information. Even news articles can be fraught with biased language and assuming
titles. In order to wade through all of these undesirable sources to find what is usable, it is
important to evaluate several attributes of an article in order to personally establish its credibility.
The authors credentials and publishing history can be important clues to reveal what their
personal biases might be and if they are even qualified to be writing the article. Their publication
method can be equally revealing; respected, peer-reviewed journals are much more credible than
a news site that may have only hours to review an article before publishing. These different
formats also have different depths of information. A news site will give a wide scope of an issue
with little detail, while a scholarly journal will publish in-depth articles related to very specific
issues, including a bibliography of previous research on the subject that supports the authors
points throughout the article. However, no matter the source, it is still important to be on the
lookout for biased language that subtly sways the reader into thinking a certain way. The two

2
sources that have been evaluated using these standards are the articles Sharing Electronic Health
Records: The Patient View by John Powell, and An Ethical Framework for Sharing Patient Data
Without Consent by Robert Navarro. After judging these articles based on these criteria, Powells
article has been determined to be more trustworthy as a source of unbiased information.
John Powell has an extensive background in the medical field with several degrees,
including a PhD in psychiatry. He has lectured at universities in the UK and currently works part
time between Oxford university and NICE (the National Institute for health and Care
Excellence). He is also a co-Editor-in-Chief of Digital Health, a relatively new peer-reviewed
journal that discusses technology and data in the medical field. Powell has been studying digital
health and the role of information technologies in improving health services for over 20 years.
Given these credentials, it would be difficult to find someone more suitable to discuss the sharing
of electronic health records. Not only does he have a long-lived, substantial background
pertaining to the articles focus, but to this day he continues researching and contributing to his
field of study, including the review of others articles for the Digital Health journal.
The author of the second article, Robert Navarro, is the CEO of Sapior, an English
company that develops software for pseudonymisation and other manipulation of medical
records for data safety. Sapior has a contract with the NHS to de-identify sensitive patient
information for use in secondary medical purposes, such as further analyzation by third parties.
Navarro himself has a business degree and has contributed to a small number of peer-reviewed
articles, all relating to the sharing of electronic health records. He appears to have little academic
presence; any of his credibility in the field of medical record sharing stems from the fact that he
owns a company which is devoted to the securing and sharing of medical records. This makes

3
him less trustworthy as a source since he will have a more singular view of the healthcare world
as a business owner.
Although the authors have quite different backgrounds, both articles were published in
the same journal, Innovation in Health Informatics (Informatics in Primary Care at the time of
both publications). The journal is peer reviewed and publishes just four issues per year, dedicated
to information technology and information management in health care, especially in which the
patient is engaged regarding their treatment decisions. The inclusion of the two articles in such a
reputable journal is promising in regard to their credibility, since each article must have been
reviewed thoroughly by experts before publication.
Another trait of the articles that must be evaluated for credibility's sake is the existence of
any potential bias. Because Navarro is the CEO of a company that benefits off of the sharing of
medical records, the article will likely have a positive bias towards his companys practices.
Judging from his article which deals with protecting data privacy, data modification, and the
reasoning behind using patient data, it is likely that he wrote it in order to soften criticisms or to
ease the minds of those wary of his business practices. For example, in regards to not getting
patient consent for sharing data, he states: on closer inspection using patient consent as a
basis is only ethical when it is prior, informed and understood, freely given and specific. Because
occasionally it is not possible to secure one or all of these, an alternative to patient consent is
sometimes needed. Judging by his background, it is possible that Navarro wrote this with the
motivation to cast his company in a better light, especially since the NHS will use patient data
without consent unless specifically asked not to.
On the other hand, Powells article discusses the patients ideas of data sharing and the
extent to which they would allow their record to be shared, using a study with a small number of

4
patients. This original research is much less likely to be biased since Powell is simply reporting
the patients opinions and analyzing their reasoning. However, this does not mean there was no
motivation behind the research. Near the end of the article, Powell states: [The results] are
intended to highlight some issues which have to date been under-researched and which require
further work to guide policymakers making key decisions over the practicalities and ethics in the
sharing of personal data in national EHRs He also acknowledges that a larger study with
more varied patients would be necessary to further investigate data sharing and patient consent.
Powell is much more straightforward regarding the motivations behind his research, and it does
not appear to alter the tone of the rest of the article since he is mostly discussing research
findings and giving background for the study. Like Navarro, Powell gives enough background
information in order for the reader to have an understanding of why the rest of the article is
important.
While Navarros article still provides useful in-depth information regarding a practical
approach to data privacy, it loses some credibility due to the authors background as CEO of a
company working for the NHS. Powells article offers less depth of background information but
retains more credibility when the authors credentials are examined. Although both articles can
be found in the same journal, the motivations of the authors were wildly different due to how
each author has approached the medical informatics field as a career. After evaluating these
traits, it is clear that Sharing Electronic Health Records: The Patient View by John Powell is the
more credible article.
Bibliography

5
Powell, John, Richard Fitton, and Caroline Fitton. "Sharing Electronic Health Records: The
Patient View." Informatics In Primary Care 14.1 (2006): 55-57. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 2 Nov. 2016.

Navarro, Robert. "An Ethical Framework For Sharing Patient Data Without Consent."
Informatics In Primary Care 16.4 (2008): 257-262. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Nov.
2016.