ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Quality of Informed Consent and Interface Usability in Primary Care e-Consultation: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Correction: Quality of Informed Consent and Interface Usability in Primary Care e-Consultation: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient autonomy through informed consent is a foundational ethical principle for health care practitioners. Online consent processes risk producing "consent in name only," using manipulative or confusing user interfaces to extract consent artificially. This presents a significant danger for safe and ethical remote consultations for primary care providers, which often extract significant amounts of sensitive personal data.
objectiveThis study aims to examine the quality of consent obtained through both currently used and novel consent acquisition interfaces for remote e-consultations between a patient and a primary care provider.
methodsA total of 55 adult participants in the United Kingdom completed an interaction with a mock-up e-consultation system's consent interface for data processing, with 54 completing the full study protocol. The participants were then asked questions regarding what they had provided consent for and the usability of the interface. These responses led to the calculation of an industry-standard System Usability Scale (SUS) score and a novel Quality of Informed Consent Collected Digitally (QuICCDig) score.
resultsUsers perceiving interfaces to be more usable (with a greater SUS score) were statistically significantly (n=54; P=.004) correlated with an increase in the quality of consent collected from those users (with a higher QuICCDig score). Nonetheless, both existing and novel user interfaces for collecting e-consultation consent were rated poorly, achieving a maximum SUS letter grade of "F." In total, 45% (25/55) of all the participants reported not recalling making a privacy-related decision at all during their consultation, and 87% (48/55) did not recall being offered any alternatives to e-consultation.
conclusionsThe findings demonstrate that current methods for collecting consent in telemedical applications may not be fit for purpose and potentially fail to collect valid informed consent. However, increased usability scores from users do appear to drive improvements in the quality of consent collected. Therefore, decision-makers should place importance on high-quality interface design when building or procuring these systems. We have also provided the QuICCDig score for further use.
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.