Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37808971›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Overcoming personal information protection challenges involving real-world data to support public health efforts in China.

Yu Yao, Fei Yang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

2 authors.

Yu YaoSchool of Law, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou, China.
Fei YangSchool of Law, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the information age, real-world data-based evidence can help extrapolate and supplement data from randomized controlled trials, which can benefit clinical trials and drug development and improve public health decision-making. However, the legitimate use of real-world data in China is limited due to concerns over patient confidentiality. The use of personal information is a core element of data governance in public health. In China's public health data governance, practical problems exist, such as balancing personal information protection and public value conflict. In 2021, China adopted the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) to provide a consistent legal framework for protecting personal information, including sensitive medical health data. Despite the PIPL offering critical legal safeguards for processing health data, further clarification is needed regarding specific issues, including the meaning of "separate consent," cross-border data transfer requirements, and exceptions for scientific research. A shift in the law and regulatory framework is necessary to advance public health research further and realize the potential benefits of combining real-world evidence and digital health while respecting privacy in the technological and demographic change era.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityPublic HealthChinaComputer SecurityHumansPrivacycross-border data transferhealth datapersonal informationprivacyreal world data

Identifiers

PMID37808971
PMCPMC10559907

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.