Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34528895›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Privacy Practices of Health Information Technologies: Privacy Policy Risk Assessment Study and Proposed Guidelines.

Haley M LaMonica, Anna E Roberts, Grace Yeeun Lee, Tracey A Davenport, Ian B Hickie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Diabetes Technology Meeting 2021.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Haley M LaMonicaBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6563-5467
Anna E RobertsBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6827-8330
Grace Yeeun LeeBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7234-1870
Tracey A DavenportBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4218-9238
Ian B HickieBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8832-9895
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlong with the proliferation of health information technologies (HITs), there is a growing need to understand the potential privacy risks associated with using such tools. Although privacy policies are designed to inform consumers, such policies have consistently been found to be confusing and lack transparency.

objectiveThis study aims to present consumer preferences for accessing privacy information; develop and apply a privacy policy risk assessment tool to assess whether existing HITs meet the recommended privacy policy standards; and propose guidelines to assist health professionals and service providers with understanding the privacy risks associated with HITs, so that they can confidently promote their safe use as a part of care.

methodsIn phase 1, participatory design workshops were conducted with young people who were attending a participating headspace center, their supportive others, and health professionals and service providers from the centers. The findings were knowledge translated to determine participant preferences for the presentation and availability of privacy information and the functionality required to support its delivery. Phase 2 included the development of the 23-item privacy policy risk assessment tool, which incorporated material from international privacy literature and standards. This tool was then used to assess the privacy policies of 34 apps and e-tools. In phase 3, privacy guidelines, which were derived from learnings from a collaborative consultation process with key stakeholders, were developed to assist health professionals and service providers with understanding the privacy risks associated with incorporating HITs as a part of clinical care.

resultsWhen considering the use of HITs, the participatory design workshop participants indicated that they wanted privacy information to be easily accessible, transparent, and user-friendly to enable them to clearly understand what personal and health information will be collected and how these data will be shared and stored. The privacy policy review revealed consistently poor readability and transparency, which limited the utility of these documents as a source of information. Therefore, to enable informed consent, the privacy guidelines provided ensure that health professionals and consumers are fully aware of the potential for privacy risks in using HITs to support health and well-being.

conclusionsA lack of transparency in privacy policies has the potential to undermine consumers' ability to trust that the necessary measures are in place to secure and protect the privacy of their personal and health information, thus precluding their willingness to engage with HITs. The application of the privacy guidelines will improve the confidence of health professionals and service providers in the privacy of consumer data, thus enabling them to recommend HITs to provide or support care.

Indexed as

Medical InformaticsPrivacyAdolescentHumansInformed ConsentPolicyRisk Assessmentappsdigital toolsmental healthprivacysmartphonetechnology

Identifiers

PMID34528895
PMCPMC8485195
OpenAlexW3200220317

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.