Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35126615›Full record

ArticleBioSocieties2023

The life and death of confidentiality: a historical analysis of the flows of patient information.

Sarah Wadmann, Mette Hartlev, Klaus Hoeyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioSocieties, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sarah WadmannThe Danish Center for Social Science Research - VIVE, Herluf Trolles Gade 11, 1052 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3357-5479
Mette HartlevCentre for Legal Studies in Welfare and Market - WELMA, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Klaus HoeyerThe Centre for Medical Science and Technology Studies - MeST, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health data can contain sensitive information. People who consult a doctor seek help on issues that matter to them: they typically expect some form of confidentiality. However, the notion and practices of confidentiality have changed dramatically over time. In this article, we trace the history of confidentiality in the Danish healthcare system, which has one of the world's most integrated patient information infrastructures. Building on an analysis of legal and political documents dating back to the late seventeenth century, we show that confidentiality originated as a social phenomenon that helped build trust in healthcare professionals and gradually developed into an idiom of citizens rights. Lately, confidentiality has given way to more technocratic forms of data protection. As the political, legal and technological reality, which the idea of confidentiality once referred to, has radically changed, we argue that confidentiality has become what Ulrik Beck has called a 'zombie category'-a notion that lives on even if its content has passed away. If confidentiality has become a zombie concept, we suggest it is time to discuss what may take its place so that patient interests are protected in the current political economy of health data.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityDataficationDigitalizationInformation technologySecrecyZombie categories

Identifiers

PMID35126615
PMCPMC8799987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.