Pulse Oximeter App Privacy Policies During COVID-19: Scoping Assessment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Pulse oximeter apps became of interest to consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly when traditional over-the-counter pulse oximeter devices were in short supply. Yet, no study to date has examined or scoped the state of privacy policies and notices for the top-rated and most downloaded pulse oximeter apps during COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine, through a high-level qualitative assessment, the state and nature of privacy policies for the downloaded and top-rated pulse oximeter apps during the COVID-19 pandemic to (1) compare findings against comparable research involving other mobile health (mHealth) apps and (2) begin discussions on opportunities for future research or investigation. METHODS: During August-October 2020, privacy policies were reviewed for pulse oximeter apps that had either at least 500 downloads (Google Play Store apps only) or a three out of five-star rating (Apple Store apps only). In addition to determining if the apps had an accessible privacy policy, other key privacy policy-related details that were extracted included, but were not limited to, app developer location (country); whether the app was free or required paid use/subscription; whether an ads disclosure was provided on the app's site; the scope of personal data collected; proportionality, fundamental rights, and data protection and privacy issues; and privacy safeguards. RESULTS: Six pulse oximeter apps met the inclusion criteria and only 33% (n=2) of the six apps had an accessible privacy policy that was specific to the pulse oximeter app feature (vs the app developer's website or at all). Variation was found in both the regulatory nature and data privacy protections offered by pulse oximeter apps, with notable privacy protection limitations and gaps, although each app provided at least some information about the scope of personal data collected upon installing the app. CONCLUSIONS: Pulse oximeter app developers should invest in offering stronger privacy protections for their app users, and should provide more accessible and transparent privacy policies. This is a necessary first step to ensure that the data privacy of mHealth consumers is not exploited during public health emergency situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic, where over-the-counter personal health monitoring devices could be in short supply and patients and consumers may, as a result, turn to mHealth apps to fill such supply gaps. Future research considerations and recommendations are also suggested for mHealth technology and privacy researchers who are interested in examining privacy implications associated with the use of pulse oximeter apps during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».