ReviewBMJ global health2021
Rebooting consent in the digital age: a governance framework for health data exchange.
Review in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unfolding the policy dynamics of medical data assetization in Chinese public healthcare institutions: evidence from Latent Dirichlet Allocation and dynamic topic modeling analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Review
- Bridging ethical gaps in digital health research: a framework for informed consent aligned with NIH guidance.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Digital health technologies/interventions in smart ward development for elderly patients with diabetes: A perspective from China and beyond.World journal of diabetes · 2025Review
- Opportunities and challenges of a dynamic consent-based application: personalized options for personal health data sharing and utilization.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- The impact of digital governance on the health of rural residents: the mediating role of governance efficiency and access to information.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Technology, Training, and Task Shifting at the World's Largest Mass Gathering in 2025: An Opportunity for Antibiotic Stewardship in India.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Patient Perspectives and Preferences for Consent in the Digital Health Context: State-of-the-art Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- The COVID-19 pandemic: an opportunity to strengthen telemedicine in low and middle-income countries.Pediatric research · 2023Article
- Human Rights Implications of the Digital Revolution in Health Care in India.Health and human rights · 2022Article
- Approaches to priority identification in digital health in ten countries of the Global Digital Health Partnership.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- The role of remote data capture, wearables, and digital biomarkers in decentralized clinical trials.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In August 2020, India announced its vision for the National Digital Health Mission (NDHM), a federated national digital health exchange where digitised data generated by healthcare providers will be exported via application programme interfaces to the patient's electronic personal health record. The NDHM architecture is initially expected to be a claims platform for the national health insurance programme 'Ayushman Bharat' that serves 500 million people. Such large-scale digitisation and mobility of health data will have significant ramifications on care delivery, population health planning, as well as on the rights and privacy of individuals. Traditional mechanisms that seek to protect individual autonomy through patient consent will be inadequate in a digitised ecosystem where processed data can travel near instantaneously across various nodes in the system and be combined, aggregated, or even re-identified.In this paper we explore the limitations of 'informed' consent that is sought either when data are collected or when they are ported across the system. We examine the merits and limitations of proposed alternatives like the fiduciary framework that imposes accountability on those that use the data; privacy by design principles that rely on technological safeguards against abuse; or regulations. Our recommendations combine complementary approaches in light of the evolving jurisprudence in India and provide a generalisable framework for health data exchange that balances individual rights with advances in data science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.