ReviewDigital health
Factors influencing patients' willingness to share their digital health data for primary and secondary use: A theory- and evidence-based overview of reviews.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Technological Solutions for Interoperability Between Patient Electronic Medical Records and Clinical Registries: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Perspectives on Health Data Sharing Among Patients With Somatic and Mental Health Diseases: Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Influencing factors of individuals' willingness to share public health data in big data-driven healthcare: an empirical study based on China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The sharing of health data (HD) remains intensely debated, such as in the context of the European Health Data Space. While HD sharing has great potential, the factors influencing patients' willingness to share their HD remain unclear. Understanding patients' perspectives is crucial to enhancing their motivation to share their HD, both with healthcare providers (primary use [PU]) and for purposes unrelated to patient care (secondary use [SU]). Objective: This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) synthesizes and qualitatively appraises available research on factors affecting patients' willingness to share their digital HD for PU and SU. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus literature databases were searched in June 2023, complemented by additional searches, to identify SRs focusing on the determinants of patients' willingness to share HD published from 2013 to 2023. SRs underwent a multistage screening process using the inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the Population, Concept/Construct, and Context (PCC) framework, followed by data extraction and quality assessment using revised measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR2). Factors were categorized through a combined deductive-inductive thematic coding process, considering theories on HD sharing and technology acceptance. Results: Eleven SRs published between 2014 and 2021 were included, encompassing 321 articles with diverse study designs. Forty-one influencing factors (labeled as facilitators, barriers and inconsistent for unclassifiable factors) were identified and grouped into 15 main categories: 22 facilitators, nine barriers, and four inconsistent factors for PU and 13 facilitators, six barriers, and six inconsistent factors for SU. The key facilitators for PU and SU included higher education, trust, confidentiality, and transparency. The major barriers for PU and SU were privacy and security concerns. The R-AMSTAR2 overall confidence rating of all SRs was critically low. Conclusion: Our findings highlight modifiable and nonmodifiable factors affecting patients' willingness to share their HD. Policymakers and healthcare providers should focus on modifiable factors such as individual usefulness, public benefit, and privacy and security concerns. High-quality SRs are urgently needed to provide reliable recommendations and to develop a holistic, practical framework. Protocol registration number: CRD42023429302.
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.