Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41641260›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

The European Health Data Space: an opportunity to strengthen citizen rights and engage citizens in health data governance.

Patricia Cervera de la Cruz, Teodora Lalova-Spinks, Mahsa Shabani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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.

Patricia Cervera de la CruzFaculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Teodora Lalova-SpinksFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Mahsa ShabaniFaculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The European Health Data Space (EHDS), the European Union's new regulatory framework for health data use and reuse, will have important implications for citizens across the Union. While the regulation aims to empower citizens in the primary use of their health data-such as by giving them access to their electronic health records-their role in the secondary use of health data remains less clearly defined. Methods: To explore this, we interviewed health data experts across 23 European countries to understand their perspectives on citizen involvement in data reuse. Results: Our findings reveal that while the provision for an opt-out mechanism provides individuals with control, its practical implementation requires careful design to ensure accessibility and operability. Experts also emphasized the importance of broader citizen engagement, both to raise awareness about the EHDS and to incorporate citizens' perspectives into governance structures. Furthermore, clearly demonstrating the value of the EHDS was perceived to be crucial for fostering public trust and acceptance. Discussion: The study provides valuable insights for Member States in developing strategies to engage citizens in the secondary use of health data under the EHDS framework. It highlights the importance of an easily accessible opt-out mechanism, reinforced by clear and effective communication to prevent misinformation, emphasize the tangible benefits of data sharing, and account for the influence of institutional trust and country-specific contexts in shaping public attitudes toward the EHDS.

Indexed as

citizen engagementcitizen rightsEuropean Health Data Space (EDHS)health dataimplementationsecondary use

Identifiers

PMID41641260
PMCPMC12864452

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.