ArticleCureus2024
Understanding the Perspectives of Hail City Population on the Confidentiality and Privacy of Digital Health and Medical Information.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background In the era of rapid digital advancement, the confidentiality and privacy of digital health and medical data have become paramount concerns. This study investigates the perspectives of individuals residing in Hail City regarding these critical issues, with a particular emphasis on the influence of demographic factors such as age, gender, and computer proficiency on individuals' discomfort with health professionals using computers and their trust in researchers. Gaining a deeper understanding of these factors is vital for the development of targeted interventions aimed at enhancing patient comfort and trust in digital health/medical technologies. Methodology This study employed a descriptive cross-sectional design, involving a survey of 775 individuals aged 18 and above in Hail City. The questionnaire was designed to gather information on participants' demographic characteristics, computer proficiency, experiences with digital health and medical information, and perceptions of health information safety and privacy. To examine the associations and predictive relationships between variables, chi-square tests, correlation analyses, and logistic regression were performed. Results Significant associations were found between gender and discomfort with health professionals using computers (chi-square = 60.29, p < 0.0001), and between age and trust in researchers regarding the privacy of medical information (chi-square = 50.14, p < 0.0001). Positive correlations were observed between computer proficiency and perception of health information safety (r = 0.12, p = 0.0002), while a negative correlation was found between computer ownership and avoidance of medical tests due to privacy concerns (r = -0.08, p = 0.03). Logistic regression analysis identified age, gender, and computer proficiency as significant predictors of discomfort with health professionals using computers. The findings highlight the crucial role that demographic factors play in shaping attitudes toward the privacy and security of digital health and medical information. Conclusions The findings of this study highlight the crucial role that demographic factors play in shaping attitudes toward the privacy and security of digital health and medical information. Gender and age were found to significantly influence individuals' levels of discomfort and trust, while computer proficiency was shown to enhance perceptions of safety. Based on these findings, the researchers recommend implementing targeted interventions, such as gender-sensitive training programs and initiatives, to enhance digital literacy and improve patient comfort and trust in digital health technologies.
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.