Submitted:
04 January 2023
Posted:
10 January 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
1.1. Related work
1.2. Aim and objectives
2. Materials and Methods
- Step 1. A healthcare provider sends a survey (for instance, an EQ-5D form) from a mobile application to the patient. The patient answers the survey through a smartphone or web browser. The results will be encrypted and sent back to the healthcare provider.
- Step 2. Upon receiving the encrypted result from the patient, the healthcare provider performs a validation check: it evaluates the encrypted data and sends some aggregated ciphertexts together with the expected plaintexts to the smart contract (the detailed validation check process is given in Section 2.1).
- Step 3. The patient sends the decryption key to the smart contract.
- Step 4. If the patient answer the survey as intended (not just randomly answering the questions), the smart contract will decrypt the aggregated ciphertexts that were received from the healthcare provider to the corresponding expected pre-determined plaintexts. In this case, the survey is validated, the smart contract records the key and sends rewards to the patient.
- Step 5. The healthcare provider reads the decryption key from the smart contract, decrypts the result from the patient.

2.1. Fair data exchange via blockchain and IER detection
2.2. A mathematical model for PROMs and its encryption
- Choose two distinctive random numbers from and a random number from . The matching questions will be embeded to the i-th and j-th survey questions.
- For , we assign t to a certain response of i-th question, then its mathching response in j-th question is assigned by a number . Hence, the sum of these two questions’ matching responses will be , we call it matching sum.
Homomorphic encryption
Encrypting matching responses
Techniques for validation check
- The healthcare provider designs questions and sends all the questions to the patient.
- The patient answers the questions and encrypts the responses by a homomorphic encryption scheme. Suppose the response of question is , then the encrypted value is , where k is the key of the homomorphic encryption scheme. Eventually, the patient sends the encrypted data to the healthcare provider.
- The healthcare provider performs an audition on the received ciphertexts. The audition process is to have an evaluation on the matching responses. Suppose the matching questions are and , and the matching sum is . The healthcare provider computes the addition of and , denote the sum as , sends to the smart contract.
- After receiving the decryption key k from the patient and some checking values from the healthcare provider, the smart contract checks if equals to . If so, sends token to the patient and records the key k on the smart contract. Otherwise, rejects.
2.3. Functionality overview
Privacy on blockchains

Fairness for both patients and healthcare provider
Compatible with VerifyMed
3. Result
3.1. IER detection accuracy
3.2. Code and computation cost on smart contact
| Algorithm 1 Patients’ encryption |
![]() |
| Algorithm 2 Healthcare provider validation check |
![]() |
| Algorithm 3 Smart contract validation check |
![]() |
| Function | Cost in gas | Transaction size (byte) |
| Deploy smart contract | 1057381 | 9120 |
| Healthcare provider validation check submission | 204064 | 394 |
| Patient key submission | 62367 | 74 |
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| MDPI | Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute |
| PROs | patient- reported outcomes |
| PROMs | Patient-reported outcome measures |
| PREMs | patient-reported experience measures 28 |
| FDA | Food and Drug Administrations |
| IER detection | insufficient effort responding detection |
References
- Willke, R.J.; Burke, L.B.; Erickson, P. Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Controlled clinical trials 2004, 25, 535–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deshpande, P.R.; Rajan, S.; Sudeepthi, B.L.; Nazir, C.A. Patient-reported outcomes: a new era in clinical research. Perspectives in clinical research 2011, 2, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Food. ; Administration, D.; et al. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist 2009, 74, 65132–65133. [Google Scholar]
- Weldring, T.; Smith, S.M. Article commentary: patient-reported outcomes (pros) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health services insights 2013, 6, HSI–S11093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Herdman, M.; Gudex, C.; Lloyd, A.; Janssen, M.; Kind, P.; Parkin, D.; Bonsel, G.; Badia, X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of life research 2011, 20, 1727–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basch, E.; Iasonos, A.; Barz, A.; Culkin, A.; Kris, M.G.; Artz, D.; Fearn, P.; Speakman, J.; Farquhar, R.; Scher, H.I.; et al. Long-term toxicity monitoring via electronic patient-reported outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007, 25, 5374–5380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hohwü, L.; Lyshol, H.; Gissler, M.; Jonsson, S.H.; Petzold, M.; Obel, C. Web-based versus traditional paper questionnaires: a mixed-mode survey with a Nordic perspective. Journal of medical Internet research 2013, 15, e173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Howard, J.S.; Toonstra, J.L.; Meade, A.R.; Whale Conley, C.E.; Mattacola, C.G. Feasibility of conducting a web-based survey of patient-reported outcomes and rehabilitation progress. Digital health 2016, 2, 2055207616644844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peters, M.; Crocker, H.; Jenkinson, C.; Doll, H.; Fitzpatrick, R. The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for long-term conditions in primary care: a cohort survey. BMJ open 2014, 4, e003968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kristman, V.; Manno, M.; Côté, P. Loss to follow-up in cohort studies: how much is too much? European journal of epidemiology 2004, 19, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nastasoiu, A.; Vandenbosch, M. Competing with loyalty: How to design successful customer loyalty reward programs. Business Horizons 2019, 62, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasselgren, A.; Rensaa, J.A.H.; Kralevska, K.; Gligoroski, D.; Faxvaag, A.; et al. Blockchain for Increased Trust in Virtual Health Care: Proof-of-Concept Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2021, 23, e28496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Edwards, P.J.; Roberts, I.; Clarke, M.J.; DiGuiseppi, C.; Wentz, R.; Kwan, I.; Cooper, R.; Felix, L.M.; Pratap, S. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brealey, S.D.; Atwell, C.; Bryan, S.; Coulton, S.; Cox, H.; Cross, B.; Fylan, F.; Garratt, A.; Gilbert, F.J.; Gillan, M.G.; et al. Improving response rates using a monetary incentive for patient completion of questionnaires: an observational study. BMC medical research methodology 2007, 7, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Warwick, H.; Hutyra, C.; Politzer, C.; Francis, A.; Risoli Jr, T.; Green, C.; Verma, N.; Huettel, S.; Mather III, R.C. Small social incentives did not improve the survey response rate of patients who underwent orthopaedic surgery: A randomized trial. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 2019, 477, 1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kalantar, J.S.; Talley, N.J. The effects of lottery incentive and length of questionnaire on health survey response rates: a randomized study. Journal of clinical epidemiology 1999, 52, 1117–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gates, S.; Williams, M.A.; Withers, E.; Williamson, E.; Mt-Isa, S.; Lamb, S.E. Does a monetary incentive improve the response to a postal questionnaire in a randomised controlled trial? The MINT incentive study. Trials 2009, 10, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Halamka, J.D. Real Blockchain Use Cases for Healthcare. In Proceedings of the Blockchain in healthcare Today, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Ekblaw, A.; Azaria, A. MedRec: Medical Data Management on the Blockchain. Viral Communications 2016.
- Galteland, Y.J.; Wu, S. Blockchain-based Privacy-preserving Fair Data Trading Protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2021/1321, 2021. https://ia.cr/2021/1321.
- Huang, J.; Curran, P.; Keeney, J.; Poposki, E.; DeShon, R. Detecting and Deterring Insufficient Effort Responding to Surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology 2012, 27, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentry, C. A Fully Homomorphic Encryption Scheme. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 2009. AAI3382729.
- Gama, N.; Izabachène, M.; Nguyen, P.Q.; Xie, X. Structural Lattice Reduction: Generalized Worst-Case to Average-Case Reductions and Homomorphic Cryptosystems. EUROCRYPT (2); In Proceedings of the Fischlin, M.; Coron, J., Eds. Springer, 2016, Vol. 9666, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 528–558. [CrossRef]
- Brakerski, Z.; Gentry, C.; Vaikuntanathan, V. (Leveled) Fully Homomorphic Encryption Without Bootstrapping. In Proceedings of the ITCS; Goldwasser, S., Ed. ACM, 2012, pp. 309–325. [CrossRef]
- Hasselgren, A.; Kralevska, K.; Gligoroski, D.; Faxvaag, A.; et al. Medical Students’ Perceptions of a Blockchain-Based Decentralized Work History and Credentials Portfolio: Qualitative Feasibility Study. JMIR Formative Research 2021, 5, e33113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Github source code. https://github.com/ShuangWu121/Crypto-incentives-for-PROMs.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).


