You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Unaddressed privacy risks in accredited health and wellness apps: a cross-sectional systematic assessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-015-0444-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kit Huckvale, José Tomás Prieto, Myra Tilney, Pierre-Jean Benghozi, Josip Car |
| Abstract |
Poor information privacy practices have been identified in health apps. Medical app accreditation programs offer a mechanism for assuring the quality of apps; however, little is known about their ability to control information privacy risks. We aimed to assess the extent to which already-certified apps complied with data protection principles mandated by the largest national accreditation program. Cross-sectional, systematic, 6-month assessment of 79 apps certified as clinically safe and trustworthy by the UK NHS Health Apps Library. Protocol-based testing was used to characterize personal information collection, local-device storage and information transmission. Observed information handling practices were compared against privacy policy commitments. The study revealed that 89 % (n = 70/79) of apps transmitted information to online services. No app encrypted personal information stored locally. Furthermore, 66 % (23/35) of apps sending identifying information over the Internet did not use encryption and 20 % (7/35) did not have a privacy policy. Overall, 67 % (53/79) of apps had some form of privacy policy. No app collected or transmitted information that a policy explicitly stated it would not; however, 78 % (38/49) of information-transmitting apps with a policy did not describe the nature of personal information included in transmissions. Four apps sent both identifying and health information without encryption. Although the study was not designed to examine data handling after transmission to online services, security problems appeared to place users at risk of data theft in two cases. Systematic gaps in compliance with data protection principles in accredited health apps question whether certification programs relying substantially on developer disclosures can provide a trusted resource for patients and clinicians. Accreditation programs should, as a minimum, provide consistent and reliable warnings about possible threats and, ideally, require publishers to rectify vulnerabilities before apps are released. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 18% |
| Australia | 2 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Andorra | 1 | 5% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 5% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 68% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 18% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 435 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Bahamas | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 423 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 79 | 18% |
| Researcher | 48 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 47 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 8% |
| Other | 27 | 6% |
| Other | 79 | 18% |
| Unknown | 120 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 73 | 17% |
| Computer Science | 57 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 31 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 7% |
| Psychology | 28 | 6% |
| Other | 82 | 19% |
| Unknown | 135 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 298. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2020.
All research outputs
#108,696
of 24,284,650 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#107
of 3,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,335
of 279,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#8
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,284,650 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.