ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2024
[Legal regulation of digital public health interventions-hindrance or stimulus?]
Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- High Patient Willingness to Grant Broad Consent for Real-World Data Use in Rheumatology-Implications for Real-World Data Platform Governance: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Stakeholder perceptions on institutional design of digital health regulatory frameworks: insights from Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda.Oxford open digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The potential benefits of digital health technologies in population-based health research depend mainly on whether and to what extent these technologies can be based on the processing of personal health data. However, there needs to be more certainty in the application and interpretation of the relevant legal regulations on the processing of research data using digital health technologies. Research practice primarily uses consent as a legitimation basis for data processing, although the information model of the German and European legislator, with its ambitious requirements for voluntary and informed consent, is unrealistic and needs to be revised. Even the concepts of broad consent, dynamic consent, and meta consent, which represent alternatives to the classic consent solution, cannot remedy all the deficits of the consent model.In order to guarantee the informational self-determination of the persons concerned and, at the same time, keep an eye on the interests of research in the public health sector, data protection for research purposes must be further developed. Solutions should not only be tailored to consent behavior but must also consider the legitimization of research data processing without consent or aim to remove the personal reference of the data irretrievably. To date, the law has only fulfilled its task of striking an appropriate balance between the interests of all stakeholders to a limited extent. However, improvement is in sight, especially given current regulatory initiatives and new legal solutions. This discussion article illustrates the ambivalent role of law: on the one hand, health data protection law is often perceived as an obstacle to innovation, but on the other hand, law can pave the way for digital health technologies if further developed.
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.