Communal data work: Data sharing and re-use in clinical genetics

State of open science in cancer research

PURPOSE

This study has been focused on assessing the Open Science scenario of cancer research during the period 2011-2021, in terms of the derived scientific publications and raw data dissemination.

METHODS

A cancer search equation was executed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded, collecting the papers signed by at least one Spanish institution. The same search strategy was performed in the Data Citation Index to describe dataset diffusion.

RESULTS

50,822 papers were recovered, 71% of which belong to first and second quartile journals. 59% of the articles were published in Open Access (OA) journals. The Open Access model and international collaboration positively conditioned the number of citations received. Among the most productive journals stood out Plos One, Cancers, and Clinical and Translational Oncology. 2693 genomics, proteomics and metabolomics datasets were retrieved, being Gene Expression Omnibus the favoured repository.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been an increase in oncology publications in Open Access. Most were published in first quartile journals and received higher citations than non-Open Access articles, as well as when oncological investigation was performed between international research teams, being relevant in the context of Open Science. Genetic repositories have been the preferred for sharing oncology datasets. Further investigation of research and data sharing in oncology is needed, supported by stronger Open Science policies, to achieve better data sharing practices among three scientific main pillars: researchers, publishers, and scientific organizations.

Data work and practices in healthcare: A scoping review

CONTEXT

In healthcare, digitization has been widespread and profound, entailing a deluge of data. This has spurred ambitions for healthcare to become data-driven to improve efficiency and quality, and within medicine itself to improve diagnosing and treating diseases. The generation and processing of data requires human intervention and work, though this is often not acknowledged.

PURPOSE

The paper investigates who, where, by which means, and for which purposes data work is conducted which is crucial for healthcare managers and policy makers if ambitions to become data-driven are to succeed. To guide further research, it also provides an overview of existing research on data work and practices.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review based on a search for papers including the terms healthcare or health care combined with at least one of the following terms: data work, data worker*, data practice*, data practitioner* in Scopus and Web of Science. 74 papers on data work or practices in healthcare were included.

ANALYSIS

The 74 papers were coded and analyzed regarding the following themes: the kind of data workers and practitioners, organizational settings, involved technologies, purposes, data work tasks, theories and concepts, and definitions of data work and practice.

RESULTS

Data work is pervasive in healthcare and conducted by various professions and people and in various contexts. The field researching data work and practices is emerging, with publications spread across multiple venues. and there is a need for more precise definitions of data work. Further, data work and practices are useful concepts that have enabled the exploration of those efforts and tasks in detail.

CONCLUSION

The research on data work and practices in healthcare is emerging and promising. We call for more research to consolidate the field and to better understand and support the work needed for healthcare to become data-driven.

Exploring the challenges of and solutions to sharing personal genomic data for use in healthcare

Boosted by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the tightened General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation within the European Union (EU), individuals have become increasingly concerned about privacy. This is also reflected in how willing individuals are to consent to sharing personal data, including their health data. To understand this behaviour better, this study focuses on willingness to consent in relation to genomic data. The study explores how the provision of educational information relates to willingness to consent, as well as differences in privacy concerns, information sensitivity and the perceived trade-off value between individuals willing versus unwilling to consent to sharing their genomic data. Of the respondents, 65% were initially willing to consent, but after educational information 89% were willing to consent and only 11% remained unwilling to consent. Educating individuals about potential health benefits can thus help to correct the beliefs that originally led to the unwillingness to share genomic data.