ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Consent mechanisms and default effects in health information exchange in Japan.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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.
- Health Information Exchange Usage in Japan: Content Analysis of Audit Logs.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Health information exchange (HIE) is an information system that efficiently shares patient information across medical institutions. However, traditional consent methods, represented by opt-in and opt-out, face a trade-off between efficiency and ethical, making it difficult to fundamentally improve consent rates. To address this issue, we focused on default settings and proposed an innovative approach called the "two-step consent model," which leverages the advantages of existing models using utility theory. We evaluated the acceptability of this method. Methods: An online survey was conducted with 2,000 participants registered with Japan's largest internet survey company. We compared and analyzed the consent rates of the opt-in, opt-out, and two-step consent models. Results: The opt-in model had a 29.5% consent rate, maximizing patient autonomy but increasing the burden and reducing efficiency. The opt-out model had a 95.0% consent rate but raised concerns among half of the respondents. The two-step consent model had a 68.5% consent rate, demonstrating its cost-effectiveness compared with traditional models. Discussion: The two-step consent model, involving implicit and explicit consent when needed, ensures efficient consent acquisition while respecting patient autonomy. It is a cost-effective policy option that can overcome the ethical issues associated with the opt-out model. Introducing methods that leverage both opt-in and opt-out advantages is expected to address HIE stagnation. Conclusion: The two-step consent model is expected to improve consent rates by balancing the efficiency and quality of consent acquisition. To achieve this, patient education is crucial for raising awareness and understanding of HIE and its consent methods.
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.