ArticleBiochemia medica2021
Post-GDPR survey of data protection officers in research and non-research institutions in Croatia: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cellular heterogeneity of hepatic granuloma formation and evolution in murine schistosomiasis japonica.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Workload and procedures used by European data protection authorities related to personal data protection: a cross-sectional study.BMC research notes · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGeneral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) focuses on important elements of data ethics, including protecting people's privacy, accountability and transparency. According to the GDPR, certain public institutions are obliged to appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO). However, there is little publicly available data from national EU surveys on DPOs. This study aimed to examine the scope of work, type of work, and education of DPOs in institutions in Croatia. MATERIALS AND
methodsDuring 2020-2021, this cross-sectional study surveyed DPOs appointed in Croatia. The survey had 35 items. The questions referred to their appointment, work methods, number and type of cases handled by DPOs, the sources of information they use, their experience and education, level of work independence, contacts with ethics committees, problems experienced, knowledge, suggestions for improvement of their work, changes caused by the GDPR, and sociodemographic information.
resultsOut of 5671 invited DPOs, 732 (13%) participated in the study. The majority (91%) indicated that they could perform their job independently; they did not have prior experience in data protection before being appointed as DPOs (54%) and that they need additional education in data protection (82%).
conclusionsMost DPOs indicated that they had none or minimal prior experience in data protection when they were appointed as DPO, that they would benefit from further education on data protection, and exhibited insufficient knowledge on basic concepts of personal data protection. Requirements for DPO appointments should be clarified; mandatory education and certification of DPOs could be introduced and DPOs encouraged to engage in continuous education.
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.