ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Using dataflow diagrams to support research informed consent data management communications: participant perspectives.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDigital health research involves collecting vast amounts of personal health data, making data management practices complex and challenging to convey during informed consent. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted eight semi-structured focus groups to explore whether dataflow diagrams (DFD) can complement informed consent and improve participants' understanding of data management and associated risks (N = 34 participants).
resultsOur analysis found that DFDs could supplement text-based information about data management and sharing practices, such as by helping raise new questions that prompt conversation between prospective participants and members of a research team. Participants in the study emphasized the need for clear, simple, and accessible diagrams that are participant centered. Third-party access to data and sharing of sensitive health data were identified as high-risk areas requiring thorough explanation. Participants generally agreed that the design process should be led by the research team, but it should incorporate many diverse perspectives to ensure the diagram was meaningful to potential participants who are likely unfamiliar with data management. Nearly all participants rejected the idea that artificial intelligence could identify risks during the design process, but most were comfortable with it being used as a tool to format and simplify the diagram. In short, DFDs may complement standard text-based informed consent documents, but they are not a replacement. DISCUSSION: Prospective research participants value diverse ways of learning about study risks and benefits. Our study highlights the value of incorporating information visualizations, such as DFDs, into the informed consent procedures to participate in research.
conclusionFuture research should explore other ways of visualizing consent information in ways that help people to overcome digital and data literacy barriers to participating in research. However, creating a DFD requires significant time and effort from research teams. To alleviate these costs, research sponsors can support the creation of shared infrastructure, communities of practice, and incentivize researchers to develop better consent procedures.
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.