Abstract
BACKGROUND: Along with the proliferation of health information technologies (HITs), there is a growing need to understand the potential privacy risks associated with using such tools. Although privacy policies are designed to inform consumers, such policies have consistently been found to be confusing and lack transparency. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to present consumer preferences for accessing privacy information; develop and apply a privacy policy risk assessment tool to assess whether existing HITs meet the recommended privacy policy standards; and propose guidelines to assist health professionals and service providers with understanding the privacy risks associated with HITs, so that they can confidently promote their safe use as a part of care. METHODS: In phase 1, participatory design workshops were conducted with young people who were attending a participating headspace center, their supportive others, and health professionals and service providers from the centers. The findings were knowledge translated to determine participant preferences for the presentation and availability of privacy information and the functionality required to support its delivery. Phase 2 included the development of the 23-item privacy policy risk assessment tool, which incorporated material from international privacy literature and standards. This tool was then used to assess the privacy policies of 34 apps and e-tools. In phase 3, privacy guidelines, which were derived from learnings from a collaborative consultation process with key stakeholders, were developed to assist health professionals and service providers with understanding the privacy risks associated with incorporating HITs as a part of clinical care. RESULTS: When considering the use of HITs, the participatory design workshop participants indicated that they wanted privacy information to be easily accessible, transparent, and user-friendly to enable them to clearly understand what personal and health information will be collected and how these data will be shared and stored. The privacy policy review revealed consistently poor readability and transparency, which limited the utility of these documents as a source of information. Therefore, to enable informed consent, the privacy guidelines provided ensure that health professionals and consumers are fully aware of the potential for privacy risks in using HITs to support health and well-being. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of transparency in privacy policies has the potential to undermine consumers' ability to trust that the necessary measures are in place to secure and protect the privacy of their personal and health information, thus precluding their willingness to engage with HITs. The application of the privacy guidelines will improve the confidence of health professionals and service providers in the privacy of consumer data, thus enabling them to recommend HITs to provide or support care.