ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Privacy concerns regarding personal health information in Myanmar: A cross-sectional survey in a least developed country.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protecting personal health information has long been a key ethical concern in healthcare. With the rise of digital health systems, privacy concerns have intensified. In least developed countries like Myanmar, where digital literacy is low, public and governmental awareness of privacy issues is limited, and data protection laws are lacking, the health information privacy area remains largely unaddressed and understudied. This study, therefore, aimed to assess the level of privacy concerns related to personal health information in Myanmar and identify the factors associated with these concerns. A cross-sectional survey was conducted from March to May 2024 among 424 participants recruited online and through two private clinics. A validated 21-item scale measuring six domains: Collection, Errors, Unauthorized Secondary Use, Improper Access, Control, and Awareness, was used. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to validate the scale, and logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with the concerns. Among the 424 participants, 77.83% reported high concerns. The highest concern was observed in the Awareness domain (mean 5.02, SD 1.65), while the Collection domain showed the lowest (mean 3.41, SD 1.44). Participants aged 45 years or older had significantly lower odds of high concerns compared to those aged 18-24 years, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.09-0.88). In contrast, those reporting good health (aOR 3.72, 95% CI 1.69-8.23) and high health concerns (aOR 5.26, 95% CI 3.02-9.45) had increased odds of high privacy concerns. These findings highlight the need for robust privacy safeguards, legal frameworks, and trust-building measures to support Myanmar's transition to digital health systems. Sampling via online channels and private clinics likely introduced an urban/educated bias, limiting generalizability. However, the findings may still provide insights relevant for other least developed countries facing similar challenges in balancing digital innovation with the protection of personal health information.
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.