Abstract
Background The German electronic health record (EHR) aims to enhance patient care and reduce costs, but users often worry about data security. In this article, we propose and test communication strategies to mitigate privacy concerns and increase EHR uploads.
Objective We explore whether presenting a privacy fact sheet (PFS) before users must decide whether to upload medical reports in the EHR increases their willingness to do so. Our study examines the effects of framing and length of PFS on this decision.
Methods In an online user study with 227 German participants, we used a realistic EHR click dummy and varied the PFS in terms of length (short vs. long) and framing (EHR-centered vs. patient-centered).
Results The results show that a PFS has a positive effect on uploading (OR 4.276, P=.015). Although there was no effect regarding the length of a PFS, a patient-centered framing increased uploads compared to an EHR-centered framing (OR 4.043, P=.003).
Conclusion Displaying PFSs at the beginning of an upload process is a cost-effective intervention to boost EHR adoption and increase uploads of medical reports. PFS are maximally effective if they frame information in a way that emphasizes how users can exert control over their data. Willingness to upload medical data is key to the success of the EHR, including better treatments and lower costs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology and Ergonomics (Institut fuer Psychologie und Arbeitswissenschaft) at Technische Universitaet Berlin approved this study (tracking number: AWB_KAL_02_230510_Erweiterungsantrag).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Co-author: Email: markus.feufel{at}tu-berlin.de, Telephone: +49 (0)30 314 73773
The revised version includes several clarifications and methodological additions. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were specified more clearly in the Methods section, including demographic eligibility and the handling of incomplete or invalid responses, which are also depicted in a participant flowchart. The power analysis was described in greater detail, including assumptions, parameters, and the rationale for oversampling. Written informed consent was confirmed and explicitly labeled as such in the Ethics section. Measurement instruments were described in more depth: one manipulation check item was based on prior validation, while the other was newly developed and pre-tested in a pilot study. The outcome variable was based on previously validated measures from related research. The description of the control group was expanded to clarify that no privacy information was shown, reflecting the status quo in German EHR systems. A new paragraph was added to explain why demand characteristics were unlikely to have influenced the results. The Limitations section was extended to address three points: (1) the use of a stigmatized condition (depression), and its implications for generalizability across medical contexts; (2) the restriction to a German sample, with an added note that cultural and systemic factors such as digital trust and health system structure may affect applicability; and (3) the exclusion of participants identifying as diverse or selecting no answer in gender due to small cell sizes, which limits generalizability to gender-diverse populations. The Implications section was expanded to note that privacy fact sheets are not currently implemented in German EHR systems and that current privacy information is typically limited to FAQ pages or static texts not shown during data disclosure. The potential for implementation of targeted, context-sensitive PFS formats was highlighted.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
Abbreviations
- EHR
- Electronic Health Record
- EHR-Cent
- Electronic Health Record centered
- GDPR
- General Data Protection Regulation
- IV
- Independent variable
- M
- Mean
- mHealth
- Mobile health
- OR
- Odds ratio
- Pat-Cent
- Patient centered
- PFS
- Privacy fact sheet
- SD
- Standard deviation
- SNS
- Social network sites
