ArticlePloS one2017
Do privacy and security regulations need a status update? Perspectives from an intergenerational survey.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Balancing act: Europeans' privacy calculus and security concerns in online CSAM detection.Frontiers in big data · 2025Article
- Article
- Public Disclosure on Social Media of Identifiable Patient Information by Health Professionals: Content Analysis of Twitter Data.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Should police have access to genetic genealogy databases? Capturing the Golden State Killer and other criminals using a controversial new forensic technique.PLoS biology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe importance of health privacy protections in the era of the "Facebook Generation" has been called into question. The ease with which younger people share personal information about themselves has led to the assumption that they are less concerned than older generations about the privacy of their information, including health information. We explored whether survey respondents' views toward health privacy suggest that efforts to strengthen privacy protections as health information is moved online are unnecessary.
methodsUsing Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which is well-known for recruitment for survey research, we distributed a 45-item survey to individuals in the U.S. to assess their perspectives toward privacy and security of online and health information, social media behaviors, use of health and fitness devices, and demographic information.
results1310 participants (mean age: 36 years, 50% female, 78% non-Hispanic white, 54% college graduates or higher) were categorized by generations: Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers. In multivariate regression models, we found that generational cohort was an independent predictor of level of concern about privacy and security of both online and health information. Younger generations were significantly less likely to be concerned than older generations (all P < 0.05). Time spent online and social media use were not predictors of level of concern about privacy or security of online or health information (all P > 0.05). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by the non-representativeness of our sample.
conclusionsThough Millennials reported lower levels of concern about privacy and security, this was not related to internet or social media behaviors, and majorities within all generations reported concern about both the privacy and security of their health information. Thus, there is no intergenerational imperative to relax privacy and security standards, and it would be advisable to take privacy and security of health information more seriously.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.