Skip to main content
. 2023 Feb 10;25:e42507. doi: 10.2196/42507

Table 1.

Study characteristics (N=75).

Characteristic Studies, n (%)
Year of study

2010-2013 4 (5)

2014-2016 13 (17)

2017-2019 26 (35)

2020-2022 32 (43)
Country of origin

United States 48 (64)

England 6 (8)

Ireland 3 (4)

Sweden 3 (4)

Germany 3 (4)

Othera 12 (16)
Study context

Clinical care 33 (44)

Research 29 (39)

Consumer innovations 13 (17)
Study purpose

Willingness to share PHIb 25 (33)

Usability and user comprehension 25 (33)

Willingness to participate 12 (16)

Consent information needs 6 (8)

eConsentc design and implementation 7 (9)
Study methods

Quantitative 36 (48)

Mixed methods 23 (31)

Qualitative 14 (19)

Multimethods 2 (3)
Study design

Cross-sectional survey 35 (47)

Focus groups 11 (15)

Randomized controlled trial 7 (9)

Interviews 4 (5)

Multiple methods 12 (16)

Other 6 (8)
Study sample or population

Research, biobank, or patient 54 (72)

General populationd 19 (25)

Knowledge users 2 (3)
Sample subgroup analysis

No 57 (76)

Yese 18 (24)
Presence of an eConsent platform

Yes, they are developing one 16 (21)

Yes, there is one that exists 20 (27)

None used 39 (52)

aCountry of origin: countries categorized as Other included Australia (2/75, 3%), Canada (2/75, 3%), South Korea (2/75, 3%), Switzerland (2/75, 3%), Colombia (1/75, 1%), Denmark (1/75, 1%), India (1/75, 1%), and Singapore (1/75, 1%).

bPHI: personal health information.

ceConsent: electronic consent.

dGeneral population can be further divided into studies that focus on a national population (8/75, 11%) or on a regional-, provincial-, or state-level population (11/75, 15%).

eSample subgroup analysis: Yes—studies conducted a subgroup analysis to understand whether participant demographic characteristics (eg, race and ethnicity, education, age, digital and health literacy, income, and sex and gender) affected their consent preferences and behaviors.