Researchers have evaluated how patients with cardiac conditions respond to different levels of control when consenting to the use and sharing of their health data.

The study examined granular dynamic consent, which allows patients to make or revise data-sharing decisions rather than providing a single broad authorisation.

An expert workshop involving five participants was used to establish design requirements for a dynamic consent prototype. The researchers then compared single-step and multi-step interfaces with seven cardiac patients.

The assessment covered usability, perceived workload, information control and willingness to share data. Quantitative results showed no significant differences between the lower- and higher-granularity interfaces across these measures.

Interviews with participants nevertheless identified what the researchers described as a control-burden paradox. Patients valued the ability to understand and control how their information would be used, but more detailed decisions could create additional effort and complexity.

Trust also influenced the level of control participants wanted. Patients were more willing to share information when they understood who would receive it, how it would be processed and what safeguards were in place.

Participants showed particular interest in greater transparency around AI-mediated processing, including explanations of how automated systems might analyse or infer information from cardiac health data.

The findings could inform the design of consent tools used in remote monitoring, preventive cardiology, digital health research and AI-enabled clinical services.

The researchers said future consent systems should provide meaningful control without placing excessive decision-making demands on patients.