ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Undocumented migrants' and asylum seekers' healthcare rights and (medical) data protection: exploring digital health opportunities and risks through the use-case of an electronic personal health record for undocumented migrants and asylum seekers in the Netherlands.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the opportunities of electronic personal health records (EPHRs) to improve the continuity of care for undocumented migrants' (UDMs) and asylum seekers', implementing digital health technologies for these groups also result in legal concerns related to medical data protection. This exploratory study maps legal frameworks governing UDMs' and asylum seekers' access to healthcare, medical records and personal (medical) data protection in the Netherlands and examines barriers in practice according to (legal) experts. Using an EPHR as a concrete case, it further explores the opportunities, barriers, risks, and recommendations of the implementation of a digital health tool for these groups. Methods: A qualitative socio-legal study combining doctrinal legal analysis and expert interviews was applied. Thirteen (legal) experts were purposively selected and interviewed using a semi-structured guide. Afterwards, three legal experts reflected upon the results. Results: Despite the legal provisions guaranteeing UDMs' and asylum seekers' rights in healthcare, rights seemed inconsistently upheld in practice. Participants reported that many remain unaware of their rights, and their vulnerable circumstances could further impede the effective exercise of these rights. Participants recognised the potential of EPHRs to improve care access and efficiency, however, risks were also mentioned about (medical) data protection, particularly due to access by government agencies or other third parties, and recommended a highly secure, privacy-by-design EPHR, transparent communication, targeted education, and end-user involvement in the design. Discussion: This study highlights a central dilemma in digital health: whether and how an EPHR can enhance continuity of care for UDMs and asylum seekers without increasing risks of exclusion, forced disclosure, data misuse, or surveillance. Guaranteed software safety, transparent communication, education of users and professionals, and an inclusive design are proposed as conditions for responsible EPHR implementation, alongside stronger enforcement and awareness of existing rights.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.