AccScience Publishing / DP / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/dp.8158
Submit to DP
Cite this article
12
Download
134
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Toward meaningful and compassionate privacy notices: An exploratory value-sensitive design study

Nelson Shen1,2* ,  Prathiga Suthanthirarajan2 ,  Raha Moradhasel1 ,  Hwayeon Danielle Shin1,2 ,  Kate Sellen3
Show Less
1 Krembil Centre for Neuroinformatics, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3 Faculty of Design, Ontario College for Arts and Design, Toronto, Ontario
DP, 8158 https://doi.org/10.36922/dp.8158
Received: 24 December 2024 | Revised: 27 February 2025 | Accepted: 14 April 2025 | Published online: 24 April 2025
© 2025 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
Cite
XML
Abstract

The rapid evolution of digital health tools and artificial intelligence has a transformative potential to improve mental health care access and delivery, yet people are often uninformed about their data. Privacy notices (or simply, “notices”) often fail to inform readers due to their length, complexity, and lack of accessibility. This study employs a value-sensitive design (VSD) approach to conceptually, empirically, and technically investigate how digital mental health notices can meaningfully inform their readers. Through a conceptual investigation, a conceptual model from prior VSD works was adapted to explicitly include the concept of meaningful consent. Honesty, helpfulness, universal usability, and privacy were the human values that were mapped to the different domains of the conceptual model for meaningful consent. Using these values as a framework, an empirical investigation and technical investigations were conducted to identify the values people associate with meaningful consent (empirical) and the tensions that exist between values in more innovative notice designs (technical). To identify the values and value tensions, 19 interviews were conducted with a diverse sample of past, present, and potential users of the Hope by Centre for Addiction and Mental Health suicide safety planning app to explore their views on meaningful consent. The findings from the empirical investigations added depth to the value definitions, where participants described honesty as “transparency,” emphasizing being upfront, straightforward, and candid. Helpfulness centered on simplifying notices and enhancing user experience and interfaces for better comprehension. Universal usability stressed equitable, compassionate design, while privacy required clear, formal choices (e.g., “yes” or “no”) in notices. The technical investigation identified tensions predominantly between honesty and helpfulness, where over-simple or over-complex designs can be received with skepticism. Based on these findings, this study provides recommendations for adjustments to existing guidelines for meaningful consent.

Keywords
Value-sensitive design
Privacy notices
Meaningful consent
Digital mental health
Funding
We would like to acknowledge AMS Healthcare for funding this work through the Fellowship in Compassion and Artificial Intelligence.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Yu J, Shen N, Conway S, et al. A holistic approach to integrating patient, family, and lived experience voices in the development of the BrainHealth Databank: A digital learning health system to enable artificial intelligence in the clinic. Front Health Serv. 2023;3:1198195. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2023.1198195

 

  1. Shen N, Kassam I, Chen S, et al. Canadian perspectives of digital mental health supports: Findings from a national survey conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digit Health. 2022;8:205520762211022. doi: 10.1177/20552076221102253

 

  1. Williamson SM, Prybutok V. Balancing privacy and progress: A review of privacy challenges, systemic oversight, and patient perceptions in AI-driven healthcare. Appl Sci. 2024;14(2):675. doi: 10.3390/app14020675

 

  1. Pietrzykowski T, Smilowska K. The reality of informed consent: Empirical studies on patient comprehension-systematic review. Trials. 2021;22(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04969-w

 

  1. Shen N, Kassam I, Kemp J, et al. Canadians and digital health data: Privacy experiences and perspectives. In: Strudwick G, Keshavjee K, Zavar A, Ahmed Gurey T, Jahin N, editors. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2025. doi: 10.3233/SHTI250009

 

  1. Kim NS. Consentability: Consent and Its Limits. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2019. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3367917 [Last accessed on 2024 Oct 13].

 

  1. Jilka S, Simblett S, Odoi CM, et al. Terms and conditions apply: Critical issues for readability and jargon in mental health depression apps. Internet Interv. 2021;25:100433. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2021.100433

 

  1. Torous J, Bucci S, Bell IH, et al. The growing field of digital psychiatry: Current evidence and the future of apps, social media, chatbots, and virtual reality. World Psychiatry. 2021;20(3):318-335. doi: 10.1002/wps.20883

 

  1. Smith KA, Blease C, Faurholt-Jepsen M, et al. Digital mental health: Challenges and next steps. BMJ Ment Health. 2023;26(1):e300670. doi: 10.1136/bmjment-2023-300670

 

  1. Andreotta AJ, Kirkham N, Rizzi M. AI, big data, and the future of consent. AI Soc. 2022;37(4):1715-1728. doi: 10.1007/s00146-021-01262-5

 

  1. Pendse SR, Stapleton L, Kumar N, De Choudhury M, Chancellor S. Advancing a consent-forward paradigm for digital mental health data. Nat Mental Health. 2024;2(11):1298-307. doi: 10.1038/s44220-024-00330-1

 

  1. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. PIPEDA Fair Information Principle 3 - Consent; 2018. Available from: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/the-personal-information-protection-and-electronic-documents-act-pipeda/p_principle/ principles/p_consent [Last accessed on 2024 Dec 02].

 

  1. Shen N, Kassam I, Ilkina D, Wickham S, Carter-Langford A. Meaningful digital consent in Canada: Recommendations from pan-Canadian consent management workshops. HCQ. 2022;24(4):40-47. doi: 10.12927/hcq.2022.26712

 

  1. Kassam I, Ilkina D, Kemp J, Roble H, Carter-Langford A, Shen N. Patient perspectives and preferences for consent in the digital health context: State-of-the-art literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25(1):e42507. doi: 10.2196/42507

 

  1. Knijnenburg BP, Page X, Wisniewski P, Lipford HR, Proferes N, Romano J, editors. Modern Socio-Technical Perspectives on Privacy. Berlin: Springer International Publishing; 2022. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-82786-1

 

  1. Van Velsen L, Ludden G, Grünloh C. The limitations of user-and human-centered design in an eHealth context and how to move beyond them. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(10):e37341. doi: 10.2196/37341

 

  1. Friedman B, Hendry D. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. United States: MIT Press; 2019.

 

  1. Goldstein MM. Health information technology and the idea of informed consent. J Law Med Ethics. 2010;38(1):27-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00463.x

 

  1. Latour B. On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt. 1996;47(4):369-381.

 

  1. Friedman B, Felten E, Millett LI. Informed consent online: A conceptual model and design principles. In: University of Washington Computer Science and Engineering Technical Report 00-12-2; 2000. p. 8.

 

  1. Friedman B, Kahn PH, Borning A. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. In: Himma KE, Tavani HT, editors. The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics. 1st ed. United States: Wiley; 2008. p. 69-101. doi: 10.1002/9780470281819.ch4

 

  1. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1979. Avaialble from: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_final.pdf [Last accessed on 2024 Nov 29].

 

  1. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.

 

  1. Friedman B, Howe DC, Felten E. Informed consent in the Mozilla browser: implementing value-sensitive design. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society; 2002. p. 10. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2002.994366

 

  1. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Consultation on consent under PIPEDA; 2017. Available from: https://www. priv.gc.ca/en/about-the-opc/what-we-do/consultations/ completed-consultations/consultation-on-consent-under-pipeda [Last accessed on 2024 Dec 02].

 

  1. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Consent and Privacy - A Discussion Paper Exploring Potential Enhancements to consent under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act; 2016. Available from: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/ research/explore-privacy-research/2016/consent_201605 [Last accessed on 2023 Oct 03].

 

  1. Autora G. Current Challenges in Psychological Science. Serbia: Filozofski fakultet u Nišu; 2023. doi: 10.46630/dpp.2023

 

  1. Aslan S, Aybek B. The value of helpfulness: An analysis of the 4th grade primary school students’ views and their drawings. Int Online J Educ Sci. 2019;11(5):106-118. doi: 10.15345/iojes.2019.05.007

 

  1. Westin AF. Privacy and Freedom. New York: Athenum; 1967.

 

  1. Shin HD, Zaheer J, Torous J, Strudwick G. Designing implementation strategies for a digital suicide safety planning intervention in a psychiatric emergency department: Protocol for a multimethod research project. JMIR Res Protoc. 2023;12(1):e50643. doi: 10.2196/50643

 

  1. Shen N, Strauss J, Silver M, Carter-Langford A, Wiljer D. The eHealth trust model: A patient privacy research framework. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;257:382-387. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-951-5-382

 

  1. Shen N, Kassam I, Zhao H, et al. Foundations for meaningful consent in Canada’s digital health ecosystem: Retrospective study. JMIR Med Inform. 2022;10(3):e30986. doi: 10.2196/30986

 

  1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Informat. 2009;42(2):377-381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

 

  1. Kowalski CP, Nevedal AL, Finley EP, et al. Planning for and assessing rigor in rapid qualitative analysis (PARRQA): A consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting. Implement Sci. 2024;19(1):71. doi: 10.1186/s13012-024-01397-1

 

  1. Hamilton AB, Finley EP. Qualitative methods in implementation research: An introduction. Psychiatry Res. 2019;280:112516. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112516

 

  1. Canada Health Infoway. What Canadians Think 2022 - Privacy Edition Survey: Canadians’ Perspectives on Digital Health Privacy. Canada Health Infoway; 2022. https:// www.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/component/edocman/resources/reports/privacy/6403-what-canadians-think-2022-privacy-edition-survey-canadians-perspectives-on-digital-health-privacy [Last accessed on 2023 Feb 08].

 

  1. Bernaerdt J, Moerenhout T, Devisch I. Vulnerable patients’ attitudes towards sharing medical data and granular control in patient portal systems: An interview study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2021;27(2):429-37. doi: 10.1111/jep.13465

 

  1. Van der Schyff K, Foster G, Renaud K, Flowerday S. Onlineprivacy fatigue: A scoping review and research agenda. Future Internet. 2023;15(5):164. doi: 10.3390/fi15050164

 

  1. Anhalt-Depies C, Stenglein JL, Zuckerberg B, Townsend PA, Rissman AR. Tradeoffs and tools for data quality, privacy, transparency, and trust in citizen science. Biol Conserv. 2019;238:108195. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108195

 

  1. Wong RY, Mulligan DK, Van Wyk E, Pierce J, Chuang J. Eliciting values reflections by engaging privacy futures using design workbooks. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact. 2017;1:1-26. doi: 10.1145/3134746

 

  1. Gerteis M, Edgman-Levitan S, Daley J, Delbanco TL. Through the Patient’s Eyes: Understanding and Promoting Patient-Centered Care. United States: John Wiley and Sons; 2002.

 

  1. Desai MU, Paranamana N, Dovidio JF, Davidson L, Stanhope V. System-Centered Care: How bureaucracy and racialization decenter attempts at person-centered mental health care. Clin Psychol Sci. 2023;11(3):476-489. doi: 10.1177/21677026221133053

 

  1. Zaman B, Jafari Naimi N. A Value Sensitive Design Case Study: Why Values do (not) Design. In: Workshop Charting the Next Decade for Value Sensitive Design, Critical Alternatives Conference 2015.

 

  1. Borning A, Muller M. Next Steps for Value Sensitive Design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM; 2012. p. 1125-1134. doi: 10.1145/2207676.2208560

 

  1. Dietkus R. The call for trauma‐informed design research and practice. Des Manag Rev. 2022;33(2):26-31. doi: 10.1111/drev.12295

 

  1. Carey H. Anti-oppression mindsets for collaborative design. In: Synergy - DRS International Conference 2020; 2020. doi: 10.21606/drs.2020.277

 

  1. World Economic Forum. Reimagining Notice and Consent for Human- Technology Interaction. Switzerland: World Economic Forum; 2020.

 

Share
Back to top
Design+, Electronic ISSN: 3060-8953 Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept