What do we assess when we assess mHealth app privacy and security? A rapid scoping review of mHealth app privacy instruments.

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Fangziyun Tong, Stella Antoniou, Mark Larsen
{"title":"What do we assess when we assess mHealth app privacy and security? A rapid scoping review of mHealth app privacy instruments.","authors":"Fangziyun Tong, Stella Antoniou, Mark Larsen","doi":"10.1093/jamia/ocag154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>While there are numerous mobile health (mHealth) apps on the market, previous research has highlighted their risks to privacy and security. Therefore, an instrument to assess the privacy and security of these apps may be helpful for ensuring consumers' data safety. We therefore conducted this rapid scoping review with the objective of surveying the landscape for instruments used to measure and quantify privacy and/or security of mHealth apps in the past 10 years.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, we systematically searched the relevant literature in 4 electronic databases between May 2015 and May 2025. The characteristics of the papers and/or instruments were analyzed and reported descriptively. The instruments' content was analyzed using content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 66 papers describing 42 distinct instruments. We found that the number of items and rating methods varied significantly across the instruments. Five topics were identified from content analysis: data practice, security measures, risk and incident management, regulatory compliance and users' rights, and privacy policy and terms and conditions.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>While the nature of the instruments is diverse, it is currently unknown how many items, which topics, or how responses should be structured is optimal. Additionally, the majority of identified instruments cannot comprehensively measure the proposed 5 topics. Moreover, questions on security measures may not be easily rated by users without specific domain knowledge.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review can serve as a guide for future mHealth app privacy and security evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50016,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocag154","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: While there are numerous mobile health (mHealth) apps on the market, previous research has highlighted their risks to privacy and security. Therefore, an instrument to assess the privacy and security of these apps may be helpful for ensuring consumers' data safety. We therefore conducted this rapid scoping review with the objective of surveying the landscape for instruments used to measure and quantify privacy and/or security of mHealth apps in the past 10 years.

Materials and methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, we systematically searched the relevant literature in 4 electronic databases between May 2015 and May 2025. The characteristics of the papers and/or instruments were analyzed and reported descriptively. The instruments' content was analyzed using content analysis.

Results: We identified 66 papers describing 42 distinct instruments. We found that the number of items and rating methods varied significantly across the instruments. Five topics were identified from content analysis: data practice, security measures, risk and incident management, regulatory compliance and users' rights, and privacy policy and terms and conditions.

Discussion: While the nature of the instruments is diverse, it is currently unknown how many items, which topics, or how responses should be structured is optimal. Additionally, the majority of identified instruments cannot comprehensively measure the proposed 5 topics. Moreover, questions on security measures may not be easily rated by users without specific domain knowledge.

Conclusion: This review can serve as a guide for future mHealth app privacy and security evaluation.

当我们评估移动健康应用程序的隐私和安全性时,我们会评估什么?移动健康应用隐私工具的快速范围审查。
虽然市场上有许多移动健康(mHealth)应用程序,但之前的研究强调了它们对隐私和安全的风险。因此,一种评估这些应用的隐私和安全性的工具可能有助于确保消费者的数据安全。因此,我们进行了这次快速的范围审查,目的是调查过去10年来用于测量和量化移动健康应用程序隐私和/或安全性的工具的情况。材料和方法:按照PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta - analysis)指南,系统检索了2015年5月至2025年5月期间4个电子数据库的相关文献。对论文和/或仪器的特征进行分析和描述性报告。采用含量分析法对仪器的含量进行分析。结果:我们鉴定了66篇论文,描述了42种不同的仪器。我们发现,项目的数量和评级方法显着不同的工具。从内容分析中确定了五个主题:数据实践、安全措施、风险和事件管理、法规遵从性和用户权利,以及隐私政策和条款和条件。讨论:虽然这些工具的性质是多种多样的,但目前尚不清楚有多少项目、哪些主题或应如何组织回应是最佳的。此外,大多数确定的工具不能全面衡量提议的5个主题。此外,没有特定领域知识的用户可能不容易对安全措施的问题进行评级。结论:本综述可为今后移动健康应用隐私和安全评估提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 医学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
7.80%
发文量
230
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMIA is AMIA''s premier peer-reviewed journal for biomedical and health informatics. Covering the full spectrum of activities in the field, JAMIA includes informatics articles in the areas of clinical care, clinical research, translational science, implementation science, imaging, education, consumer health, public health, and policy. JAMIA''s articles describe innovative informatics research and systems that help to advance biomedical science and to promote health. Case reports, perspectives and reviews also help readers stay connected with the most important informatics developments in implementation, policy and education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书