Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2407.03808

Designing Value-Centered Consent Interfaces: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Support Patient Values in Data-Sharing Decisions

David Leimstädtner·Peter Sörries·Claudia Müller-Birn
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In the digital health domain, ethical data collection practices are crucial for ensuring the availability of quality datasets that drive medical advancement. Data donation, allowing patients to share their medical data for secondary research purposes, presents a promising resource for such datasets. Yet, current consent user interfaces mediating data-sharing decisions are found to favor data collectors' values over those of data subjects. This raises ethical concerns about the use of data collected, as well as concerning the quality of the resulting datasets. Seeking to establish value-centered data collection practices in digital health, we investigate the design of consent user interfaces that support end-users in making value-congruent health data-sharing decisions. Focusing our research efforts on the situated context of health data donation at the psychosomatic unit of a university hospital, we demonstrate how a human-centered design can ground technology within the perspective of a vulnerable group. We employed an exploratory sequential mixed-method approach consisting of five phases: Participatory workshops elicit patient values, informing the design of a proposed Value-Centered Consent Interface. An online experiment demonstrates our interface element's effect, increasing value congruence in data-sharing decisions. Our proposed consent user interface design is then adapted to the research context through a co-creation workshop with domain experts and a user interface evaluation with patients. Our work contributes to recent discourse in CSCW concerning ethical implications of new data practices within their socio-technological context by exploring patient values on medical data-sharing, introducing a novel consent interface leveraging reflection to support value-congruent decision-making, and providing a situated evaluation of the proposed consent user interface with patients.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David Leimstädtner, Peter Sörries, Claudia Müller-Birn. 2025-05-13. Designing Value-Centered Consent Interfaces: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Support Patient Values in Data-Sharing Decisions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03808

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Explanation Navigator: Rectifying Out-of-Scope Human Interpretations of Leaky AI Explanations through Conversational Guidance

As explanations of artificial intelligence systems proliferate, their recipients must grasp not only what they convey but also recognise what they cannot. We conducted an interview study with nine participants to examine how explainees reason when their information needs exceed the scope of available explanations. Participants often unwittingly confabulated explanatory insights when relevant information was missing from the explanations, not recognising the inherent limitations thereof. We characterise such explanations as leaky explanations -- simplifications that strive to hide complexity yet whose correct interpretation hinges on understanding of the concealed details. To address out-of-scope interpretations we propose Explanation Navigator: a conversational interaction framework that detects mismatches between users' information needs and explanations' content, elucidating pertinent yet implicit details and providing complementary explanations for unmet information needs. An online study with 316 participants showed that our approach allowed explainees to recognise and rectify confabulated explanatory insights, guiding them towards developing correct understanding.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Biased AI improves human performance but reduces perceived helpfulness

Artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly shapes how people think, engage, and evaluate information. To minimize risk, most current systems are designed to present as ideologically neutral with standardized output. Yet growing evidence suggests that these principles suppress cognitive engagement, impair human decision-making, and erode societal diversity. Here we test the opposite approach by deliberately injecting bias into AI assistants. In three randomized experiments with 5,000 participants, biased AI improved human performance relative to default and neutral AI in tasks ranging from misinformation evaluation and financial investment to graduate education. These gains carried a subjective cost. Participants systematically undervalued AI they believed to be biased and inflated the helpfulness of AI they believed to be neutral, regardless of the systems' actual behavior. Interacting with two AIs whose biases flanked the participant's own perspective preserved the performance gains while limiting the subjective cost and one-sided influence. Our findings reveal the strategic value of intentional bias in AI design. Rather than performing a single fair, reliable, and authoritative voice, AI that speaks from specific viewpoints triggers cognitive agency and elevates human-AI performance in judgment, decision-making, and problem-solving.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Learning Password Best Practices Through In-Task Instruction

Users often make security- and privacy-relevant decisions without a clear understanding of the rules that govern safe behavior. We introduce pedagogical friction, a design approach that inserts brief, instructional interactions at the moment of action. We evaluate this approach in the context of password creation, a familiar task with clear quality criteria. We conducted a randomized study with 128 participants across four interface conditions that varied the depth and interactivity of guidance. We assessed three outcomes: (1) rule compliance in a subsequent password task without guidance, (2) accuracy on survey questions tied to password rules, and (3) behavior-knowledge alignment, which captures whether participants who correctly followed a rule also recognized it on the survey. Across the guided conditions, participants corrected most rule violations in the follow-up task and showed high behavior-knowledge alignment. Survey results suggested clearer advantages for some rule types, especially symbol related questions. These results position pedagogical friction as a lightweight intervention for security- and privacy-critical interfaces.

cs.HC↗