ArticleApplied clinical informatics2021
Privacy versus Convenience: A Historical Perspective, Analysis of Risks, and an Informatics Call to Action.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2021. 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.
- What Do We Mean by Sharing of Patient Data? DaSH: A Data Sharing Hierarchy of Privacy and Ethical Challenges.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Paging the Clinical Informatics Community: Respond STAT to Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health Organization.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- Integrated Digital Health Solutions in the Management of Growth Disorders in Pediatric Patients Receiving Growth Hormone Therapy: A Retrospective Analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Digital Health for Supporting Precision Medicine in Pediatric Endocrine Disorders: Opportunities for Improved Patient Care.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Review
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
backgroundThe pace of technological change dwarfs the pace of social and policy change. This mismatch allows for individual harm from lack of recognition of changes in societal context. The value of privacy has not kept pace with changes in technology over time; individuals seem to discount how loss of privacy can lead to directed personal harm.
objectiveThe authors examined individuals sharing personal data with mobile health applications (mHealth apps) and compared the current digital context to the historical context of harm. The authors make recommendations to informatics professionals to support consumers who wish to use mHealth apps in a manner that balances convenience with personal privacy to reduce the risk of harm.
methodsA literature search focused by a historical perspective of risk of harm was performed throughout the development of this paper. Two case studies highlight questions a consumer might ask to assess the risk of harm posed by mobile health applications.
resultsA historical review provides the context for the collective human experience of harm. We then encapsulate current perceptions and views of privacy and list potential risks created by insufficient attention to privacy management. DISCUSSION: The results provide a historical context for individuals to view the risk of harm and shed light on potential emotional, reputational, economic, and physical harms that can result from naïve use of mHealth apps. We formulate implications for clinical informaticists.
conclusionConcepts of both harm and privacy have changed substantially over the past 20 years. Technology provides methods to invade privacy and cause harm unimaginable a few decades ago. Only recently have the consequences become clearer. The current regulatory framework is extremely limited. Given the risks of harm and limited awareness, we call upon informatics professionals to support more privacy education and protections and increase mHealth transparency about data usage.
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.