Sharing information in home care Personal proposal by Per-Arne Andersen H5 · Spring 2027 https://thesis.uya.no/proposals/share-only-what-matters/ Control which home-care observations a nurse, coordinator and relative can see. TECHNICAL - Define role–field permissions under assignment and consent conditions, with an independently reviewed policy key. - Implement policy checks before returning data and provide a recipient-view preview. DATA (planned) 100 fictional observations, 3 roles, 10 fields Create 100 observations with patient ID, time, author, observation, value, unit, urgency, action, visit plan and free text. Define 30 role–field decisions for nurse/coordinator/relative, across assignment yes/no × consent yes/no: 120 policy cells, independently reviewed. METHOD Test all 120 allow/deny cells plus 20 bypass requests. Six staff complete 8 sharing tasks with recipient preview on/off; record unintended disclosure attempts, unnecessary withholding and time. OUTPUT Access-controlled viewer, policy matrix and test results. BACHELOR Task: Build a role-based observation viewer from an agreed, fixed permission matrix. Data: 100 fictional observations, 3 roles, 10 fields (planned) Use the 100 fictional observations and 3 roles above. Define 30 fixed role–field allow/deny cells; keep assignment and consent fixed in this bachelor prototype. Requires: Recruit staff; agree the fictional sharing policy before testing. Method: Use fictional observations; test every allowed/denied cell and direct-request bypass, then observe staff sharing tasks. Plan 4 participant sessions. Output: Permission-controlled prototype and policy tests. Use relevant literature to justify the established approach; a new research contribution is not the aim of this proposal. MASTER Investigate where static role permissions fail when assignment and consent change. Implement contextual policy checks and recipient previews; compare against the fixed role matrix on disclosure and unnecessary withholding. Intended contribution: Evaluated design principles for task-dependent sharing, not a claim of legally correct permissions. STARTING PAPERS Nissenbaum (2004) — Privacy as Contextual Integrity: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol79/iss1/10/ Analyse recipient, purpose and information flow rather than treating privacy as a role label. Amershi et al. (2019) — Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Guidelines-for-Human-AI-Interaction-camera-ready.pdf Select and justify the correction, explanation or uncertainty design being tested. Search Scopus or Web of Science and ACM Digital Library using the topic query, then follow citations to the thesis start date. Record searches and compare methods, data, findings and limitations in literature-matrix.csv. Use that review to confirm or revise the gap and choose a current comparator. The linked papers are starting points. START HERE Tools: Python, Streamlit, pytest 1. Write the 10-field dictionary and all role–field–assignment–consent policy cells; independently review the expected allow/deny decisions. 2. Create 5 fictional observations and a test for every prohibited field access. 3. Pilot the role preview with one staff member; freeze the policy before evaluating it. Literature search: home care information sharing role based access data minimisation Study controls: - Before collecting participant data, agree consent, storage and withdrawal handling with the supervisor. Use participant codes, not names, in study files. - Enforce permissions before returning data to the browser; prohibited values must not appear in responses or logs. These are fictional study policies, not established access entitlements. - For the master’s study, use the research task above to define the factors and comparisons in this pilot plan. Preregister one primary outcome and feasible scope after the literature review; do not add every possible model or interface variant. REQUIRES Recruit staff; agree the fictional sharing policy before testing. -------------------- NON-TECHNICAL - Prepare paper sharing matrices for a nurse, coordinator and relative. - Ask staff what each role should receive in six care situations. DATA (planned) 6 fictional care scenarios + 8 interviews Create scenarios covering routine activity, a missed visit and an emergency; vary recipient and information detail. METHOD Scenario interviews; code each field as needed, unnecessary or disputed. Compare disagreements by role and scenario. OUTPUT Proposed sharing matrix with reasons and disputed fields. BACHELOR Task: Document the information needed for one home-care sharing workflow. Data: 6 fictional care scenarios (planned) Create scenarios covering routine activity, a missed visit and an emergency; vary recipient and information detail. Requires: Recruit home-care staff; no patient information. Method: Interview 4 staff using the paper scenarios; record needed fields, reasons and unresolved permissions. Output: A proposed sharing matrix with requirements and open decisions. Use relevant literature to justify the established approach; a new research contribution is not the aim of this proposal. MASTER Explain conflicting sharing expectations using contextual integrity. Vary recipient, purpose, assignment and consent; compare role-based rules with context-based justifications and preserve counterexamples. Intended contribution: A contextual account of disputed information flows and policy decision ownership. STARTING PAPERS Nissenbaum (2004) — Privacy as Contextual Integrity: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol79/iss1/10/ Analyse recipient, purpose and information flow rather than treating privacy as a role label. Orlikowski & Gash (1994) — Technological Frames: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/196734.196745 Compare how roles interpret the purpose, operation and use of the same system. Search Scopus or Web of Science and ACM Digital Library using the topic query, then follow citations to the thesis start date. Record searches and compare methods, data, findings and limitations in literature-matrix.csv. Use that review to confirm or revise the gap and choose a current comparator. The linked papers are starting points. START HERE Tools: LibreOffice Writer/Calc, audio recorder with consent; no programming required. 1. Prepare a pilot with 2 examples from: 6 fictional care scenarios + 8 interviews. Write the task questions and a reference answer sheet. 2. Write a recruitment message, information sheet and consent form for the participants named above. Agree privacy handling with the supervisor before contact. 3. Pilot one session after approval; revise unclear questions, freeze the task sets and coding categories, then recruit the planned sample. Literature search: home care information sharing role based access data minimisation qualitative scenario study Study controls: - Before collecting participant data, agree consent, storage and withdrawal handling with the supervisor. Use participant codes, not names, in study files. - Pilot separately, then freeze the questions and coding plan. Check objective answer keys independently; keep an audit trail of coding, including disagreements. - For comparisons, counterbalance order and case assignment; do not show a person both versions of one case. Report participant-level findings, not repeated tasks as independent people. - Vary assignment and consent as well as role/purpose. Staff-only interviews cannot establish relatives’ preferences or legal access rights; preserve unresolved policy cells. REQUIRES Recruit 8 home-care staff; no patient information. Bachelor: apply established methods and evaluate a practical solution or study. Master: position a research question in current scientific literature, investigate a mechanism or unresolved problem, and explain the contribution. Final scope is agreed with me. Study sizes are proposed; participant recruitment and planned materials are not already arranged.