Comparing Attitudes Toward Different Consent Mediums: Semistructured Qualitative Study.

[en] BACKGROUND: As consent for data sharing evolves with the digital age, plain-text consent is not the only format in which information can be presented. However, designing a good consent form is highly challenging. The addition of graphics, video, and other mediums to use can vary widely in effectiveness; and improper use can be detrimental to users. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the expectations and experiences of adults toward consent given in infographic, video, text, newsletter, and comic forms in a health data sharing scenario to better understand the appropriateness of different mediums and identify elements of each medium that most affect engagement with the content. METHODS: We designed mock consent forms in infographic, video, text, newsletter, and comic versions. Semistructured interviews were conducted with adults who were interviewed about their expectations for consent and were then shown each consent medium and asked about engaging elements across mediums, preferences for consent mediums, and the value of document quality criteria. We transcribed and qualitatively co-coded to identify themes and perform analyses. RESULTS: We interviewed 24 users and identified different thematic archetypes based on participant goals, such as the Trust Seeker, who considered their own understanding and trust in organizations when making decisions. The infographic was ranked first for enhancing understanding, prioritizing information, and maintaining the proper audience fit for serious consent in health data sharing scenarios. In addition, specific elements such as structure, step-by-step organization, and readability were preferred engaging elements. CONCLUSIONS: We identified archetypes to better understand user needs and elements that can be targeted to enhance user engagement with consent forms; this can help inform the design of more effective consent in the future. Overall, preferences for mediums are highly contextual, and more research should be done.

Research center :

Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT) > IRiSC - Socio-Technical Cybersecurity

Disciplines :

Engineering, computing & technology: Multidisciplinary, general & others

Author, co-author :

DOAN, Xengie Cheng ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT) > IRiSC

ROSSI, Arianna ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust > IRiSC > Team Gabriele LENZINI ; LIDER Lab, DIRPOLIS, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy

Botes, Marietjie ; SnT, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg ; Department of Medicine, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

SELZER, Annika ; Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information Technology ; ATHENE, National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity

External co-authors :

yes

Language :

English

Title :

Comparing Attitudes Toward Different Consent Mediums: Semistructured Qualitative Study.

Publication date :

30 April 2024

Journal title :

JMIR Human Factors

eISSN :

2292-9495

Publisher :

JMIR Publications Inc., Canada

Volume :

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

European Projects :

H2020 - 956562 - LeADS - Legality Attentive Data Scientists

Funders :

Union Européenne

Available on ORBilu :

since 06 May 2024

Statistics

Number of views

96 (5 by Unilu)

Number of downloads

62 (1 by Unilu)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

OpenAlex citations

Bibliography

Gray CM, Kou Y, Battles B, Hoggatt J, Toombs AL. The dark (patterns) side of UX design. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2018. Presented at: CHI '18; April 21-26, 2018; Montreal, QC. [doi: 10.1145/3173574.3174108]
Bauer JM, Bergstrøm R, Foss-Madsen R. Are you sure, you want a cookie? – The effects of choice architecture on users' decisions about sharing private online data. Comput Hum Behav. Jul 2021;120:106729. [doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106729]
Santos C, Rossi A, Chamorro LS, Bongard-Blanchy K, Abu-Salma R. Cookie banners, what's the purpose?: analyzing cookie banner text through a legal lens. In: Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. 2021. Presented at: WPES '21; November 15, 2021; Virtual event. [doi: 10.1145/3463676.3485611]
Kampanos G, Shahandashti SF. Accept all: the landscape of cookie banners in Greece and the UK. In: Proceedings of the 36th IFIP TC 11 International Conference on Information Security and Privacy Protection. 2021. Presented at: 36th IFIP TC 11 International Conference on Information Security and Privacy Protection; June 22-24, 2021; Oslo, Norway. [doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-78120-0_14]
Utz C, Degeling M, Fahl S, Schaub F, Holz T. (Un)informed consent: studying GDPR consent notices in the field. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2019. Presented at: CCS '19; November 11-15, 2019; London, UK. [doi: 10.1145/3319535.3354212]
Matte C, Bielova N, Santos C. Do cookie banners respect my choice?: measuring legal compliance of banners from IAB Europe’s transparency and consent framework. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 2020. Presented at: SP 2020; May 18-21, 2020; San Francisco, CA. [doi: 10.1109/sp40000.2020.00076]
Graßl P, Schraffenberger H, Zuiderveen Borgesius F, Buijzen M. Dark and bright patterns in cookie consent requests. J Digit Soc Res. Feb 08, 2021;3(1):1-38. [doi: 10.33621/jdsr.v3i1.54]
Nouwens M, Liccardi I, Veale M, Karger DR, Kagal L. Dark patterns after the GDPR: scraping consent pop-ups and demonstrating their influence. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2020. Presented at: CHI '20; April 25-30, 2020; Honolulu, HI. [doi: 10.1145/3313831.3376321]
Montalvo W, Larson E. Participant comprehension of research for which they volunteer: a systematic review. J Nurs Scholarsh. Nov 15, 2014;46(6):423-431. [doi: 10.1111/jnu.12097] [Medline: 25130209]
Niemiec E, Vears DF, Borry P, Howard HC. Readability of informed consent forms for whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing. J Community Genet. Apr 31, 2018;9(2):143-151. [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1007/s12687-017-0324-6] [Medline: 28856579]
McBride CM, Bowen D, Brody LC, Condit CM, Croyle RT, Gwinn M, et al. Future health applications of genomics: priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research. Am J Prev Med. May 2010;38(5):556-565. [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.027] [Medline: 20409503]
D'Ignazio C. Creative data literacy: bridging the gap between the data-haves and data-have nots. Inf Design J. Jul 5, 2017;23(1):6-18. [doi: 10.1075/idj.23.1.03dig]
Ferrer RA, Stanley JT, Graff K, Klein WM, Goodman N, Nelson WL, et al. The effect of emotion on visual attention to information and decision making in the context of informed consent process for clinical trials. Behav Decis Making. Mar 28, 2016;29(2-3):245-253. [doi: 10.1002/bdm.1871]
Guidelines on transparency under regulation 2016/679 (wp260rev.01). European Commission. Aug 22, 2018. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/622227 [accessed 2024-04-23]
Steenberg WM. Visual communication as a legal-ethical tool for informed consent in genome research involving the San community of South Africa. University of South Africa. 2017. URL: https://orbilu.uni.lu/bitstream/10993/48262/1/published. pdf [accessed 2024-04-25]
Botes MW, Rossi A. Visualisation techniques for consent: finding common ground in comic art with indigenous populations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW). 2021. Presented at: EuroS&PW; September 6-10, 2021; Vienna, Austria. [doi: 10.1109/eurospw54576.2021.00037]
Antal H, Bunnell HT, McCahan SM, Pennington C, Wysocki T, Blake KV. A cognitive approach for design of a multimedia informed consent video and website in pediatric research. J Biomed Inform. Feb 2017;66:248-258. [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2017.01.011] [Medline: 28109951]
Jimison HB, Sher PP, Appleyard R, LeVernois Y. The use of multimedia in the informed consent process. J Am Med Inform Assoc. May 01, 1998;5(3):245-256. [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1136/jamia.1998.0050245] [Medline: 9609494]
Doan X, Selzer A, Rossi A, Botes WM, Lenzini G. Context, prioritization, and unexpectedness: factors influencing user attitudes about infographic and comic consent. In: Proceedings of the Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2022. 2022. Presented at: WWW '22; April 25-29, 2022; Virtual event. [doi: 10.1145/3487553.3524632]
Rossi A, Ducato R, Haapio H, Passera S. When design met law: design patterns for information transparency. Droit de la consommation. 2019;122-123(5):79-121.
European data strategy Making the EU a role model for a society empowered by data info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-data-strategy_en 2020. European Commission. URL: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-data-strategy_en [accessed 2024-04-16]
Shaping Europe’s digital future. European Commission. URL: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en [accessed 2024-04-23]
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the council of 27 April 2016. Official Journal of the European Union. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj [accessed 2024-04-23]
Rossi A, Lenzini G. Transparency by design in data-informed research: a collection of information design patterns. Comput Law Secur Rev. Jul 2020;37:105402. [doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105402]
Potel-Seville M, Talbourdet E. Empowering children to understand and exercise their personal data rights. Aalto University. URL: https://acris.aalto.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/78736878/9788855265751_Legal_Design.pdf#page=254 [accessed 2024-04-29]
Waller R. What makes a good document? The criteria we use. University of Reading. Apr 2011. URL: https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5c06fb475dbf1265069aba1e/6090fb24421b454c776fd1a8_SC2CriteriaGoodDoc_v5.pdf [accessed 2024-04-23]
Pruitt J, Grudin J. Personas: practice and theory. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences. 2003. Presented at: DUX '03; June 6-7, 2003; San Francisco, CA. [doi: 10.1145/997078.997089]
Salminen J, Guan KW, Jung SG, Jansen B. Use cases for design personas: a systematic review and new frontiers. In: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2022. Presented at: CHI '22; April 29-May 5, 2022; New Orleans, LA. [doi: 10.1145/3491102.3517589]
Hendriks N, Truyen F, Duval E. Designing with dementia: guidelines for participatory design together with persons with dementia. In: Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2013. 2013. Presented at: INTERACT 2013; September 2-6, 2013; Cape Town, South Africa. [doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40483-2_46]
Nehme J, El-Khani U, Chow A, Hakky S, Ahmed AR, Purkayastha S. The use of multimedia consent programs for surgical procedures: a systematic review. Surg Innov. Feb 14, 2013;20(1):13-23. [doi: 10.1177/1553350612446352] [Medline: 22589017]
Hoffner B, Bauer-Wu S, Hitchcock-Bryan S, Powell M, Wolanski A, Joffe S. "Entering a Clinical Trial: Is it Right for You?": a randomized study of The Clinical Trials Video and its impact on the informed consent process. Cancer. Apr 01, 2012;118(7):1877-1883. [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1002/cncr.26438] [Medline: 22009665]
Kraft SA, Constantine M, Magnus D, Porter KM, Lee SS, Green M, et al. A randomized study of multimedia informational aids for research on medical practices: implications for informed consent. Clin Trials. Feb 23, 2017;14(1):94-102. [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1177/1740774516669352] [Medline: 27625314]
Wang Z, Wang S, Farinella M, Murray-Rust D, Riche NH, Bach B. Comparing effectiveness and engagement of data comics and infographics. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2019. Presented at: CHI '19; May 4-9, 2019; Glasgow, Scotland. [doi: 10.1145/3290605.3300483]
Cook DJ, Manning DM, Holland DE, Prinsen SK, Rudzik SD, Roger VL, et al. Patient engagement and reported outcomes in surgical recovery: effectiveness of an e-health platform. J Am Coll Surg. Oct 2013;217(4):648-655. [doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.05.003] [Medline: 23891066]
Ivanova D, Katsaounis P. Real-time dynamic tiered e-consent: a novel tool for patients' engagement and common ontology system for the management of medical data. Innov Digit Health. 2021;1(2):45-49. [doi: 10.36401/IDDB-21-01]
Haas MA, Teare H, Prictor M, Ceregra G, Vidgen ME, Bunker D, et al. 'CTRL': an online, Dynamic Consent and participant engagement platform working towards solving the complexities of consent in genomic research. Eur J Hum Genet. Apr 06, 2021;29(4):687-698. [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1038/s41431-020-00782-w] [Medline: 33408362]
Simon HA. Designing organizations for an in formation-rich world. In: Greenberger M, editor. Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest. Baltimore, MD. The Johns Hopkins Press; 1971.
Ciampaglia GL, Flammini A, Menczer F. The production of information in the attention economy. Sci Rep. May 19, 2015;5(1):9452. [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1038/srep09452] [Medline: 25989177]
Street J, Duszynski K, Krawczyk S, Braunack-Mayer A. The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. May 2014;109:1-9. [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.005] [Medline: 24657639]
Varnhagen CK, Gushta M, Daniels J, Peters TC, Parmar N, Law D, et al. How informed is online informed consent? Ethics Behav. Apr 2005;15(1):37-48. [doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1501_3] [Medline: 16127857]
Hargittai E, Marwick A. “What can I really do?” Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. Int J Commun. 2016;10:21. [FREE Full text]
Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol Sci Public Interest. Dec 01, 2008;9(3):105-119. [doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x] [Medline: 26162104]
Schaub F, Balebako R, Durity AL, Cranor LF. A design space for effective privacy notices. In: Selinger E, Polonetsky J, Tene O, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy. Cambridge, MA. Cambridge University Press; 2018.
Lopes P. Culture and stigma: popular culture and the case of comic books. Sociol Forum. Oct 17, 2006;21(3):387-414. [doi: 10.1007/s11206-006-9022-6]
Linek S, Huff M. Serious comics: a new approach for science communication and learning. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Technology, Education and Development Conference. 2018. Presented at: INTED 2018; March 5-7, 2018; Valencia, Spain. [doi: 10.21125/inted.2018.0755]
Tavares R, Alemany-Pagès M, Araújo S, Cohn N, Ramalho-Santos J, Azul AM. Comics in science and health communication: insights from mutual collaboration and framing a research practice. Int J Qual Methods. 2023;22 [doi: 10.1177/16094069231183118]
Engelen B. Ethical criteria for health-promoting nudges: a case-by-case analysis. Am J Bioeth. May 08, 2019;19(5):48-59. [doi: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1588411] [Medline: 31068115]
Renaud K, Zimmermann V. Ethical guidelines for nudging in information security and privacy. Int J Hum Comput Stud. Dec 2018;120:22-35. [doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.05.011]
Meske C, Amojo I. Ethical guidelines for the construction of digital nudges. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2020. Presented at: HICSS 2020; January 7-10, 2020; Maui, HI. [doi: 10.24251/hicss.2020.480]
Schuck PH. Rethinking informed consent. Yale Law J. Jan 1994;103(4):899-959. [doi: 10.2307/797066]
Heinrichs B. Myth or magic? Towards a revised theory of informed consent in medical research. J Med Philos. Jan 14, 2019;44(1):33-49. [doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhy034] [Medline: 30649452]