Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39724084›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Survey of attitudes in a Danish public towards reuse of health data.

Lea Skovgaard, Claus Thorn Ekstrøm, Mette N Svendsen, Klaus Hoeyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. 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

4 authors.

Lea SkovgaardDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen K, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-5491-6928
Claus Thorn EkstrømDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Mette N SvendsenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Klaus HoeyerDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen K, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2780-4784

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Everyday clinical care generates vast amounts of digital data. A broad range of actors are interested in reusing these data for various purposes. Such reuse of health data could support medical research, healthcare planning, technological innovation, and lead to increased financial revenue. Yet, reuse also raises questions about what data subjects think about the use of health data for various different purposes. Based on a survey with 1071 respondents conducted in 2021 in Denmark, this article explores attitudes to health data reuse. Denmark is renowned for its advanced integration of data infrastructures, facilitating data reuse. This is therefore a relevant setting from which to explore public attitudes to reuse, both as authorities around the globe are currently working to facilitate data reuse opportunities, and in the light of the recent agreement on the establishment in 2024 of the European Health Data Space (EHDS) within the European Union (EU). Our study suggests that there are certain forms of health data reuse-namely transnational data sharing, commercial involvement, and use of data as national economic assets-which risk undermining public support for health data reuse. However, some of the purposes that the EHDS is supposed to facilitate are these three controversial purposes. Failure to address these public concerns could well challenge the long-term legitimacy and sustainability of the data infrastructures currently under construction.

Indexed as

Public OpinionAdultAgedAttitudeDenmarkFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39724084
PMCPMC11671018

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.