ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2023
Patient Perspectives and Preferences for Consent in the Digital Health Context: State-of-the-art Literature Review.
Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Blockchain-Based Dynamic and Revocable Consent for Secondary Health Data Use: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Pooled it
- Toward Participatory Precision Health With Co-Designed Recommendations: Systematic Review of Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions in Adolescents and Young Adults.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Understanding Patients' Experiences of Digital Ethics in a Digitalised Healthcare System.Nursing open · 2026Article
- An Evaluation of AI-Generated Clinical Notes in the OpenNotes Era: A Thematic Analysis of Clinician Discourse.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Individuals' preferences for future biological sample and genomic data sharing in the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Patient Perceptions and Acceptance of Blockchain-Based Health Data Sharing in Oncology: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Preferences towards digital health technologies: a scoping review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Digital Literacy and Interpersonal Trust as Predictors of Willingness to Share Patient-Generated Health Data Among Korean Internet Users: Cross-Sectional Study Using Privacy Calculus and Communication Privacy Management Theories.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Enhancing Understanding and Acceptance of Equipment Localization: Mixed Methods Study With Clinic Staff and Potential Patients.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Implementing broad consent for research with routinely collected clinical data and residual biosamples in a cancer hospital: using mixed methods approach to evaluate consent rates and patients' perspectives.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Bridging ethical gaps in digital health research: a framework for informed consent aligned with NIH guidance.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Enabling secure and self determined health data sharing and consent management.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Determinants of consent for electronic health information exchange: an observational retrospective study.Health research policy and systems · 2025Observational
- Digitalizing informed consent in healthcare: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Patient perspectives on safety and privacy in sexual orientation and gender identity data collection.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2025Article
- Article
- Perceptual and technical barriers in sharing and formatting metadata accompanying omics studies.Cell genomics · 2025Review
- Patient information needs for transparent and trustworthy cardiovascular artificial intelligence: A qualitative study.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- An Innovative Assessment Framework for Remote Care in Orthopedics.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- AI-assisted facial analysis in healthcare: From disease detection to comprehensive management.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
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
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing integration of digital health tools into care may result in a greater flow of personal health information (PHI) between patients and providers. Although privacy legislation governs how entities may collect, use, or share PHI, such legislation has not kept pace with digital health innovations, resulting in a lack of guidance on implementing meaningful consent. Understanding patient perspectives when implementing meaningful consent is critical to ensure that it meets their needs. Consent for research in the context of digital health is limited.
objectiveThis state-of-the-art review aimed to understand the current state of research as it relates to patient perspectives on digital health consent. Its objectives were to explore what is known about the patient perspective and experience with digital health consent and provide recommendations on designing and implementing digital health consent based on the findings.
methodsA structured literature search was developed and deployed in 4 electronic databases-MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science-for articles published after January 2010. The initial literature search was conducted in March 2021 and updated in March 2022. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they discussed electronic consent or consent, focused on the patient perspective or preference, and were related to digital health or digital PHI. Data were extracted using an extraction template and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
resultsIn total, 75 articles were included for analysis. Most studies were published within the last 5 years (58/75, 77%) and conducted in a clinical care context (33/75, 44%) and in the United States (48/75, 64%). Most studies aimed to understand participants' willingness to share PHI (25/75, 33%) and participants' perceived usability and comprehension of an electronic consent notice (25/75, 33%). More than half (40/75, 53%) of the studies did not describe the type of consent model used. The broad open consent model was the most explored (11/75, 15%). Of the 75 studies, 68 (91%) found that participants were willing to provide consent; however, their consent behaviors and preferences were context-dependent. Common patient consent requirements included clear and digestible information detailing who can access PHI, for what purpose their PHI will be used, and how privacy will be ensured.
conclusionsThere is growing interest in understanding the patient perspective on digital health consent in the context of providing clinical care. There is evidence suggesting that many patients are willing to consent for various purposes, especially when there is greater transparency on how the PHI is used and oversight mechanisms are in place. Providing this transparency is critical for fostering trust in digital health tools and the innovative uses of data to optimize health and system outcomes.
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.