Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27832194›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Privacy Attitudes among Early Adopters of Emerging Health Technologies.

Cynthia Cheung, Matthew J Bietz, Kevin Patrick, Cinnamon S Bloss

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Disposition toward privacy and information disclosure in the context of emerging health technologies.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Article
  12. The role of ethics in data governance of large neuro-ICT projects.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Cynthia CheungCenter for Wireless and Population Health Systems, Calit2, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.
Matthew J BietzCenter for Wireless and Population Health Systems, Calit2, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.
Kevin PatrickCenter for Wireless and Population Health Systems, Calit2, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.
Cinnamon S BlossCenter for Wireless and Population Health Systems, Calit2, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.

Funding

Impact of Privacy Environments for Personal Health Data on PatientsR01HG008753 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BLOSS, CINNAMON S · 2015 to 2017
$2.0M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG008753
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdvances in health technology such as genome sequencing and wearable sensors now allow for the collection of highly granular personal health data from individuals. It is unclear how people think about privacy in the context of these emerging health technologies. An open question is whether early adopters of these advances conceptualize privacy in different ways than non-early adopters. PURPOSE: This study sought to understand privacy attitudes of early adopters of emerging health technologies.

methodsTranscripts from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with early adopters of genome sequencing and health devices and apps were analyzed with a focus on participant attitudes and perceptions of privacy. Themes were extracted using inductive content analysis.

resultsAlthough interviewees were willing to share personal data to support scientific advancements, they still expressed concerns, as well as uncertainty about who has access to their data, and for what purpose. In short, they were not dismissive of privacy risks. Key privacy-related findings are organized into four themes as follows: first, personal data privacy; second, control over personal information; third, concerns about discrimination; and fourth, contributing personal data to science.

conclusionEarly adopters of emerging health technologies appear to have more complex and nuanced conceptions of privacy than might be expected based on their adoption of personal health technologies and participation in open science. Early adopters also voiced uncertainty about the privacy implications of their decisions to use new technologies and share their data for research. Though not representative of the general public, studies of early adopters can provide important insights into evolving attitudes toward privacy in the context of emerging health technologies and personal health data research.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityHealth Records, PersonalAdolescentAdultAgedBiomedical ResearchFemaleGenome, HumanHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsPrivacyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27832194
PMCPMC5104519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.