Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36696167›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2023

Exploring the Use of Pictograms in Privacy Agreements to Facilitate Communication Between Users and Data Collecting Entities: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Larissa Ugaya Mazza, Laura Xavier Fadrique, Amethyst Kuang, Tania Donovska, Hélène Vaillancourt, Jennifer Teague, Victoria A Hailey, Stephen Michell, Plinio Pelegrini Morita

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05631210 (Exploring the Use of Pictograms in Privacy Agreements to Facilitate Communication Between Users and Data Collecting Entities), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05631210 nacompletednot on this map

Exploring the Use of Pictograms in Privacy Agreements to Facilitate Communication Between Users and Data Collecting Entities: Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of WaterlooRan2019 to 2019Enrolled57ConditionsInformation Fatigue SyndromeArmsPrivacy agreements with pictograms
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Larissa Ugaya Mazza *School of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2096-3539
Laura Xavier Fadrique *School of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8317-6201
Amethyst Kuang *School of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8142-5574
Tania DonovskaInstitute of Health Policy, Managment, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7702-951X
Hélène VaillancourtCanadian Standards Association Group, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1091-4629
Jennifer TeagueInstitute of Health Policy, Managment, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4562-969X
Victoria A HaileyVictoria Hailey Group Corporation, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0696-448X
Stephen MichellCanadian Standards Association Group, Etobicoke, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0626-1872
Plinio Pelegrini MoritaSchool of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9515-6478

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrivacy agreements can foster trust between users and data collecting entities by reducing the fear of data sharing. Users typically identify concerns with their data privacy settings, but due to the complexity and length of privacy agreements, users opt to quickly consent and agree to the terms without fully understanding them.

objectiveThis study explores the use of pictograms as potential elements to assist in improving the transparency and explanation of privacy agreements.

methodsDuring the development of the pictograms, the Double Diamond design process was applied for 3 instances of user interactions and 3 iterations of pictograms. The testing was done by performing a comparative study between a control group, which received no pictograms, and an experimental group, which received pictograms. The pictograms were individually tested to assess their efficacy by using an estimated comprehension of information symbols test.

resultsA total of 57 participants were recruited for the pictogram evaluation phase. With the addition of pictograms, the overall understanding improved by 13% (P=.001), and the average time spent answering the questions decreased by 57.33 seconds. A 9% decrease in perceived user frustration was also reported by users, but the difference was not significant (χ

conclusionsThe addition of pictograms appeared to improve users' understanding of the privacy agreements, despite the pictograms needing further changes to be more understandable. This proves that with the aid of pictographic images, it is possible to make privacy agreements more accessible, thereby allowing trust and open communication to be fostered between users and data collecting entities.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05631210; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05631210.

Indexed as

pictogramsprivacy agreementstransparencyuser trust

Identifiers

PMID36696167
PMCPMC9947808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.