Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36763409›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2023

Patient Perspectives and Preferences for Consent in the Digital Health Context: State-of-the-art Literature Review.

Iman Kassam, Daria Ilkina, Jessica Kemp, Heba Roble, Abigail Carter-Langford, Nelson Shen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Iman KassamCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9920-3243
Daria IlkinaCanada Health Infoway, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5042-2883
Jessica KempCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5159-4433
Heba RobleCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6781-4701
Abigail Carter-LangfordCanada Health Infoway, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5137-4606
Nelson ShenCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1788-8176

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

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

Health Records, PersonalPrivacyHumansInformed ConsentPatientsTrustUnited Statesartificial intelligenceconsentdata sharingdigital healtheConsenteHealthelectronic consenthealth ITpatient engagementpersonal health informationprivacy

Identifiers

PMID36763409
PMCPMC9960046

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.