ArticleDigital health
Read and accepted? Scoping the cognitive accessibility of privacy policies of health apps and websites in three European countries.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Privacy policies for FDA-authorized or FDA-recognized digital therapeutics impose high digital health literacy demands: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Quality and Privacy Policy Compliance of Mental Health Care Apps in China: Cross-Sectional Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Flowing data: women's views and experiences on privacy and data security when using menstrual cycle tracking apps.Oxford open digital health · 2025Article
- Mapping the Apps: Ethical and Legal Issues with Crowdsourced Smartphone Data using mHealth Applications.Asian bioethics review · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Trust and accessibility are vital to adoption of health and wellness apps. This research scoped three elements of cognitive accessibility of health app privacy policies: availability, ease of navigation, and readability. Methods: For this cross-sectional study, quantitative data collected in the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom included: whether privacy information was in a country's official language (availability); number of distracting visual elements (ease of navigation); word count and Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) reading level (readability). Health app privacy policies were compared to policies from a purposively selected sample of websites, and to benchmarks, including CEFR reading level B1. Results: Health app privacy policies were less often available in countries' official languages compared to sampled websites (Chi-Square [1, 180] = 57.470, Conclusions: Lack of privacy information in non-Anglophone app-users' native languages and high reading levels may be major barriers to cognitive accessibility. Web and app developers should consider recommendations arising from this study, to stimulate trust in and adoption of health and wellness apps.
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.