Terms and conditions apply: Critical issues for readability and jargon in mental health depression apps.
Jargon
Mental health apps
Privacy policies
Readability
Service users
Journal
Internet interventions
ISSN: 2214-7829
Titre abrégé: Internet Interv
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101631612
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
05
01
2021
revised:
20
05
2021
accepted:
14
07
2021
entrez:
17
8
2021
pubmed:
18
8
2021
medline:
18
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mental health services are turning to technology to ease the resource burden, but privacy policies are hard to understand potentially compromising consent for people with mental health problems. The FDA recommends a reading grade of 8. To investigate and improve the accessibility and acceptability of mental health depression app privacy policies. A mixed methods study using quantitative and qualitative data to improve the accessibility of app privacy policies. Service users completed assessments and focus groups to provide information on ways to improve privacy policy accessibility, including identifying and rewording jargon. This was supplemented by comparisons of mental health depression apps with social media, music and finance apps using readability analyses and examining whether GDPR affected accessibility. Service users provided a detailed framework for increasing accessibility that emphasised having critical information for consent. Quantitatively, most app privacy policies were too long and complicated for ensuring informed consent (mental health apps mean reading grade = 13.1 (SD = 2.44)). Their reading grades were no different to those for other services. Only 3 mental health apps had a grade 8 or less and 99% contained service user identified jargon. Mental health app privacy policies produced for GDPR weren't more readable and were longer. Apps specifically aimed at people with mental health difficulties are not accessible and even those that fulfilled the FDA's recommendation for reading grade contained jargon words. Developers and designers can increase accessibility by following a few rules and should, before launching, check whether the privacy policy can be understood.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Mental health services are turning to technology to ease the resource burden, but privacy policies are hard to understand potentially compromising consent for people with mental health problems. The FDA recommends a reading grade of 8.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To investigate and improve the accessibility and acceptability of mental health depression app privacy policies.
METHODS
METHODS
A mixed methods study using quantitative and qualitative data to improve the accessibility of app privacy policies. Service users completed assessments and focus groups to provide information on ways to improve privacy policy accessibility, including identifying and rewording jargon. This was supplemented by comparisons of mental health depression apps with social media, music and finance apps using readability analyses and examining whether GDPR affected accessibility.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Service users provided a detailed framework for increasing accessibility that emphasised having critical information for consent. Quantitatively, most app privacy policies were too long and complicated for ensuring informed consent (mental health apps mean reading grade = 13.1 (SD = 2.44)). Their reading grades were no different to those for other services. Only 3 mental health apps had a grade 8 or less and 99% contained service user identified jargon. Mental health app privacy policies produced for GDPR weren't more readable and were longer.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Apps specifically aimed at people with mental health difficulties are not accessible and even those that fulfilled the FDA's recommendation for reading grade contained jargon words. Developers and designers can increase accessibility by following a few rules and should, before launching, check whether the privacy policy can be understood.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34401392
doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2021.100433
pii: S2214-7829(21)00073-7
pmc: PMC8350589
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100433Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Jul 09;6(7):e10016
pubmed: 29986846
Br J Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;208(2):189-94
pubmed: 26382948
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Mar 22;2:18
pubmed: 31304366
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Jul 30;6(7):e158
pubmed: 30061090
Int J Clin Pract. 2010 Feb;64(3):322-9
pubmed: 20456172
J Appl Psychol. 1948 Jun;32(3):221-33
pubmed: 18867058
J Affect Disord. 2009 Apr;114(1-3):163-73
pubmed: 18752852
J Med Internet Res. 2019 May 02;21(5):e12390
pubmed: 31045497
BMJ. 2000 Jan 8;320(7227):114-6
pubmed: 10625273
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Mar 21;19(3):e82
pubmed: 28325712
J Ment Health. 2019 Feb;28(1):1-3
pubmed: 30888284
Internet Interv. 2019 Mar 06;17:100243
pubmed: 30949436