Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31541413›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020

What Patients, Students and Doctors Think About Permission to Publish Patient Photographs in Academic Journals: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Croatia.

Marija Roguljić, Tina Poklepović Peričić, Andrea Gelemanović, Anita Jukić, Dina Šimunović, Ivan Buljan, Matko Marušić, Ana Marušić, Elizabeth Wager

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Consent for publishing patient photographs.Case reports in women's health · 2020
    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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marija RoguljićDepartment of Oral Medicine and Periodontology, School of Medicine, Study of Dental Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia. marija.roguljic@mefst.hr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3752-9074
Tina Poklepović PeričićSchool of Medicine, Study of Dental Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
Andrea GelemanovićDepartment of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
Anita JukićDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, University Hospital Centre Split, Split, Croatia.
Dina ŠimunovićPrivate Dental Practice, Split, Croatia.
Ivan BuljanDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
Matko MarušićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
Ana MarušićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
Elizabeth WagerSideview, Princes Risborough, UK.
University of Split · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Use of patient clinical photographs requires specific attention to confidentiality and privacy. Although there are policies and procedures for publishing clinical images, there is little systematic evidence about what patients and health professionals actually think about consent for publishing clinical images. We investigated the opinions of three stakeholder groups (patients, students and doctors) at 3 academic healthcare institutions and 37 private practices in Croatia (total 791 participants: 292 patients, 281 medical and dental students and 281 doctors of medicine or dental medicine). The questionnaire contained patient photographs with different levels of anonymization. All three respondent groups considered that more stringent forms of permission for were needed identifiable photographs than for those with higher levels of anonymization. When the entire face was presented in a photo only 33% of patients considered that written permission was required, compared with 88% of the students and 89% of the doctors. Opinions about publishing patient photographs differed among the three respondent samples: almost half of the patients thought no permission was necessary compared with one-third of students and doctors. These results show poor awareness of Croatian patients regarding the importance of written informed consent as well as unsatisfactory knowledge of health professionals about policies on the publication of patients' data in general. In conclusion, there is a need for increasing awareness of all stakeholders to achieve better protection of patient privacy rights in research and publication.

Indexed as

Periodicals as TopicConfidentialityCroatiaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansInformed ConsentStudentsAnonymizationClinical imagesIndividual patient dataInformed consentPatient photographPublicationStakeholder’s opinion

Identifiers

PMID31541413
OpenAlexW2974795048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.