Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41863007›Full record

ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2026

What patients value in data reuse for oncology research: a multi-stakeholder qualitative study to inform the European Health Data Space implementation in Belgium and beyond.

Teodora Lalova-Spinks, Ine van Zeeland, Silke Léonard, Florence Horicks, Brent Taels, Patricia Cervera de la Cruz, Lyzette Bax, Bernard Carton, Willy Dirkx, Mahsa Shabani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Teodora Lalova-SpinksDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. teodora.spinks@kuleuven.be.
Ine van ZeelandPatient-researcher in the Symphony of Us project, Brussels, Belgium.
Silke LéonardDepartment of Health and Science, AP University College, Antwerp, Belgium.
Florence HoricksInstitute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in Healthcare (I3h), Faculty of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Brent TaelsDepartment of Marketing, Innovation and Organisation, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Patricia Cervera de la CruzFaculty of Law, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Lyzette BaxPatient-researcher in the Symphony of Us project, Brussels, Belgium.
Bernard CartonPatient-researcher in the Symphony of Us project, Brussels, Belgium.
Willy DirkxPatient-researcher in the Symphony of Us project, Brussels, Belgium.
Mahsa ShabaniFaculty of Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Fund Cancer Research for More Patient Value, managed by the King Baudouin Foundation J1211400
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe reuse of health data is critical for advancing health research, yet it raises complex ethical, legal, and societal challenges. In the European Union, the recently adopted European Health Data Space (EHDS) aims to harmonize access to and reuse of health data for research and innovation, while safeguarding individual rights. However, questions remain about what patients value in data reuse and how their values can be embedded in governance frameworks. Belgium, with its strong research tradition and central role in EU policymaking, offers an important testbed for these questions.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study combining semi-structured interviews with 39 professionals (policy and governance representatives, researchers, physicians, industry, law and ethics experts, and supporting actors) and three focus groups with ten oncology patients and patient representatives. The interviews explored professional perspectives on data reuse and informed the design of the focus groups. Data were analyzed using the framework method, integrating inductive and deductive coding. Patient-researchers were involved throughout the study design, data collection, and interpretation.

resultsParticipants unanimously recognized the value of health data reuse at both individual (improved healthcare) and collective (advancing scientific research) levels. Patients emphasized the importance of transparency, feedback about research results, and opportunities for meaningful involvement in data governance. While patients were generally willing to share their data, they highlighted conditions such as trust in the system, strong data protection, and safeguards against misuse. Both professionals and patients considered the EHDS a positive step for facilitating research but expressed concerns about its practical implementation. All participants recognized the value of both individual and collective control over health data, though challenges of representation and resource constraints were noted when it came to patient involvement.

conclusionsThis study provides the first in-depth investigation in Belgium of what patients and professionals value in relation to health data reuse, particularly in the context of the EHDS. Findings underscore that the legitimacy of the EHDS will depend on embedding patient values into its implementation through transparency, participatory data governance, and legal and technical safeguards. The results provide actionable insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners to build a value-oriented and socially legitimate health data ecosystem at national and EU levels.

Indexed as

Data protectionEU health policyEuropean Health Data SpaceHealth researchOncology researchPatient involvementPatient valueSecondary use of data

Identifiers

PMID41863007
PMCPMC13126991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.