ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2018
Findings from 2017 on Consumer Health Informatics and Education: Health Data Access and Sharing.
Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The ethical and legal landscape of brain data governance.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Ethical implications of neurotechnology in industry-academia partnerships: Insights from patient and research participant interviews.PloS one · 2025Article
- Investigating the Impact of Usability on Energy Efficiency of Web-based Personal Health Records.Journal of medical systems · 2021Article
- A Study on the Relationship between Usability of GUIs and Power Consumption of a PC: The Case of PHRs.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Ethical Considerations for Participatory Health through Social Media: Healthcare Workforce and Policy Maker Perspectives.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2020Article
- Part I: A Quantitative Study of Social Risk Screening Acceptability in Patients and Caregivers.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo summarize the state of the art during the year 2017 in consumer health informatics and education, with a special emphasis on sharing health data and accessing personal health information (PHI) from patients' and consumers' perspective.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of articles published in PubMed using a predefined set of queries which identified 228 potential articles for review. The section editors then screened these articles according to topic relevance and selected 15 candidate best papers for full review and scoring by a panel of international experts. Based on the scores and the reviews, four papers received the highest score and were selected in a consensus meeting as the best papers on health data access and sharing from consumers' and patients' perspective.
resultsThese four papers were categorised into the following topics: 1) data sharing for research and governance in privacy protection; 2) use of personal health information and individual privacy concerns; and 3) consumers' views and demographic characteristics regarding health data sharing and the use of digital health portals. Overall, it was surprising to see only a small number of papers reporting original research in this area.
conclusionsPatients understand the need for sharing information to facilitate best care and to enrich biomedical knowledge. When confronted with the reality of accessing information systems for their own information, patients are concerned about usability as well as privacy. Overall, there is a need for more emphasis on: 1) considering privacy as a feature defined by design; 2) using specific consent approaches and data sharing mechanisms for recruiting clinical trial participants; 3) taking into account socio-demographic characteristics when promoting consumer access to personal health information; and 4) defining indicators of high-quality care to incorporate healthcare professionals' level of caution when accessing patients' medical information and fostering patient trust in data exchange. Ultimately, privacy mechanisms should be part of the design process and not only be implemented when security has been breached and violated.
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.