Trial reportJMIR human factors2026
Privacy Fact Sheets for Mitigating Disease-Related Privacy Concerns and Facilitating Equal Access to the Electronic Health Record: Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in JMIR human factors, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The German electronic health record (EHR) aims to enhance patient care and reduce costs, but users often worry about data privacy and security. To mitigate disease-related privacy concerns, for instance, surrounding stigmatized diseases, we test the effect of privacy fact sheets (PFSs)-a concise but comprehensive transparency feature designed to increase users' perceived control over their data-on increasing EHR use in a simulated online study. Objective: The study aimed to investigate whether displaying a PFS shortly before upload decisions must be made mitigates disease-related privacy concerns and makes uploads more likely. Methods: In an online survey study, 393 German participants from the recruitment platform Prolific were asked to interact with a randomly assigned medical report that varied systematically in terms of disease-related stigma (high vs low) and time course (TC; acute vs chronic). They were then asked to decide whether to upload the report to an EHR click dummy, while we systematically varied the presentation of privacy information (PFS vs no PFS). Participants were randomly (single-blinded) assigned to one of the 2×2×2 conditions (stigma, TC, privacy information). Results: All 393 participants were randomly assigned to one of the following groups: low, acute, no PFS (n=52, 13.2%); low, chronic, no PFS (n=45, 11.5%); high, acute, no PFS (n=46, 11.7%); high, chronic, no PFS (n=55, 14%); low, acute, PFS (n=44, 11.2%); low, chronic, PFS (n=41, 10.4%); high, acute, PFS (n=56, 14.2%); and high, chronic, PFS (n=54, 13.7%). The results show that, in general, upload behavior is negatively influenced by disease-related stigma (odds ratio [OR] 0.130; P<.001) and positively influenced when a PFS is given (OR 4.527; P<.001). This increase was particularly pronounced for stigmatized diseases (OR 5.952; P=.006), but independent of the TC of the diseases. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that PFSs may help to increase EHR uploads in people interacting with a realistic EHR click dummy, by mitigating privacy concerns in scenarios involving stigmatized diseases. Results further indicate that a PFS is mainly relevant and effective for people with increased privacy risk perceptions, whereas they neither benefit nor hurt others. Thus, implementing PFSs may increase the likelihood that users who perceive high privacy risks when confronted with sensitive or stigmatized health information decide to upload their data to the EHR, ultimately increasing digital health equity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.