ArticleDigital health
Mobilizing participation: The first German stakeholder conference on engaging patients and self-help organizations in digital health research.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital transformation in the healthcare sector within the European Union (EU) raises various ethical concerns regarding the use of health research data and regarding how to address such concerns through ethical governance. Methods: This article presents the results of the first German national stakeholder conference - a structured discourse process for developing political or ethical positions through citizen participation - which included patient organizations (POs) and self-help organizations (SHOs) (N=45). Participants were asked to describe their positions regarding participation and engagement in digital health research and health research data-sharing policies in an interactive process, facilitated by researchers from health care ethics. Results: POs/SHOs emphasize the ethical relevance of patient autonomy and transparency as preconditions for trust. Therefore, data protection and transparent consent procedures are seen as a necessary part of responsible research. While recognizing the potential of large-scale data use to increase research efficiency, they stress the importance of promoting patient-centeredness through participatory approaches. Structured participation requires clear definition of tasks, empowerment of POs/SHOs, understanding of the special features of voluntary structures, and target group-oriented, barrier-free communication of research results. Their support depends on upholding strong legal safeguards and respecting individual rights. Additional demands include improved digital literacy, health literacy, and financial resources. Conclusions: Future research should focus on dynamic consent models and fair participation structures. From the start, it should be clarified to POs/SHOs whether intended research projects are oriented toward the public good or primarily commercial. This can be an important factor in their decision to participate in research.
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.