ArticleHealth informatics journal
My data choices: Pilot evaluation of patient-controlled medical record sharing technology.
Article in Health informatics journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Data Control and Delayed Discounting on the Public's Willingness to Share Different Types of Health Care Data: Empirical Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- FHIR Granular Sensitive Data Segmentation.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Collection and sharing of health information in mental health and related systems in Australia: perspectives of people who access mental health services.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- Supporting Patients in Managing Electronic Health Records and Biospecimens Consent for Research: Insights from a Mixed-Methods Usability Evaluation of the iAGREE Portal.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- Physicians' Perspectives on HL7 Information Policy Sensitive Value Set: A Validation Study through Health Concept Categorization.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
- Physicians differ in their perceptions of sensitive medical records: Survey and interview study.Health informatics journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients desire greater control over sharing their digital health data. Consent2Share (C2S) is an open-source consent tool offered by SAMHA and the VA to support granular data sharing (GDS) options that align with patient preferences and data privacy regulations. The need to validate this tool exists. We pilot tested C2S with 199 English and Spanish-speaking patients with behavioral health conditions (BHCs) and patient guardians. Data were analyzed using mixed methodology. All participants desired granular control over the sharing of their health data. Most participants (87%) were highly interested in using a tool that offered granular options for executing data sharing decisions, with over half (55%) indicated that being able to specify the data type, data recipient, and data use purpose made them more willing to share their medical records. Majority (83%) indicated that the supported data type sharing categories satisfied their data-sharing privacy preferences. Majority (87%) also reported that knowing the purpose of data use made them more comfortable in sharing. Some participants (28%) accessed the education materials provided on data type sharing options. Patients want granular choices when sharing medical records. Consent2Share and its supported data type sharing categories are adequate to capture patients' data sharing preferences. Further development is needed before deployment in clinical environments.
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.