Views of Ethical Best Practices in Sharing Individual-Level Data From Medical and Public Health Research: A Systematic Scoping Review

Scoping Review to Identify Social Determinants of Maternal Health in Morocco

To understand the mechanism of health inequities and their influence on maternal health, the Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) provides a framework to identify structural and intermediate causes of health inequity. This review maps and describes the current socioeconomic determinants of maternal health in Morocco according to the CSDH framework. A scoping study was carried out from six databases (Springer, Web of Science, Pubmed, Science Direct, Jstor, and Cochrane library) based on quantitative and qualitative research done since 1990. Structural factors such as women's employment and economic status, education level, culture, and gender equity were influenced by intermediary factors such as place of residence, age at marriage, maternal age at childbirth, and parity (either alone or in conjunction with other variables). Together these factors worked to influence maternal health service usage or affected maternal health outcomes. Power dynamics were identified in a variety of social situations that impacted access to health care for women across socioeconomic categories. Studies reveal how social determinants impact maternal health in Morocco. Addressing these determinants is required for sustainably improving maternal and infant health in Morocco.

Public and Patients' Perspectives Towards Data and Sample Sharing for Research: An Overview of Empirical Findings

We aimed to review the attitudes and perspectives of the public and patients towards the sharing of data and biospecimens for research and to identify common dimensions, regardless of setting. Our review included systematic, scoping or thematic reviews of empirical studies retrieved from Medline (PubMed interface), Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane Reviews. The main themes identified and synthesised across the 14 reviews were readiness and motivations; potential risks and safeguards; trust, transparency and accountability; autonomy and preferred type of consent; and factors influencing data and biospecimen sharing and consent. Sociodemographic factors and research and individual context remain relevant influencing factors in all settings, while preferences for types of consent are highly heterogeneous. Trusted environments and adapted consent options with participant engagement are relevant to improve research participation.

Conceptualizing fairness in the secondary use of health data for research: A scoping review

With the introduction of the European Health Data Space (EHDS), the secondary use of health data for research purposes is attracting more attention. Secondary health data processing promises to address novel research questions, inform the design of future research and improve healthcare delivery generally. To comply with the existing data protection regulations, the secondary data use must be fair, among other things. However, there is no clear understanding of what fairness means in the context of secondary use of health data for scientific research purposes. In response, we conducted a scoping review of argument-based literature to explore how fairness in the secondary use of health data has been conceptualized. A total of 35 publications were included in the final synthesis after abstract and full-text screening. Using an inductive approach and a thematic analysis, our review has revealed that balancing individual and public interests, reducing power asymmetries, setting conditions for commercial involvement, and implementing benefit sharing are essential to guarantee fair secondary use research. The findings of this review can inform current and future research practices and policy development to adequately address concerns about fairness in the secondary use of health data.

FAIR, ethical, and coordinated data sharing for COVID-19 response: a scoping review and cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 data sharing platforms and registries

Data sharing is central to the rapid translation of research into advances in clinical medicine and public health practice. In the context of COVID-19, there has been a rush to share data marked by an explosion of population-specific and discipline-specific resources for collecting, curating, and disseminating participant-level data. We conducted a scoping review and cross-sectional survey to identify and describe COVID-19-related platforms and registries that harmonise and share participant-level clinical, omics (eg, genomic and metabolomic data), imaging data, and metadata. We assess how these initiatives map to the best practices for the ethical and equitable management of data and the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) principles for data resources. We review gaps and redundancies in COVID-19 data-sharing efforts and provide recommendations to build on existing synergies that align with frameworks for effective and equitable data reuse. We identified 44 COVID-19-related registries and 20 platforms from the scoping review. Data-sharing resources were concentrated in high-income countries and siloed by comorbidity, body system, and data type. Resources for harmonising and sharing clinical data were less likely to implement FAIR principles than those sharing omics or imaging data. Our findings are that more data sharing does not equate to better data sharing, and the semantic and technical interoperability of platforms and registries harmonising and sharing COVID-19-related participant-level data needs to improve to facilitate the global collaboration required to address the COVID-19 crisis.

COLLAGENE enables privacy-aware federated and collaborative genomic data analysis

Growing regulatory requirements set barriers around genetic data sharing and collaborations. Moreover, existing privacy-aware paradigms are challenging to deploy in collaborative settings. We present COLLAGENE, a tool base for building secure collaborative genomic data analysis methods. COLLAGENE protects data using shared-key homomorphic encryption and combines encryption with multiparty strategies for efficient privacy-aware collaborative method development. COLLAGENE provides ready-to-run tools for encryption/decryption, matrix processing, and network transfers, which can be immediately integrated into existing pipelines. We demonstrate the usage of COLLAGENE by building a practical federated GWAS protocol for binary phenotypes and a secure meta-analysis protocol. COLLAGENE is available at https://zenodo.org/record/8125935 .

What constitutes equitable data sharing in global health research? A scoping review of the literature on low-income and middle-income country stakeholders' perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Despite growing consensus on the need for equitable data sharing, there has been very limited discussion about what this should entail in practice. As a matter of procedural fairness and epistemic justice, the perspectives of low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) stakeholders must inform concepts of equitable health research data sharing. This paper investigates published perspectives in relation to how equitable data sharing in global health research should be understood.

METHODS

We undertook a scoping review (2015 onwards) of the literature on LMIC stakeholders' experiences and perspectives of data sharing in global health research and thematically analysed the 26 articles included in the review.

RESULTS

We report LMIC stakeholders' published views on how current data sharing mandates may exacerbate inequities, what structural changes are required in order to create an environment conducive to equitable data sharing and what should comprise equitable data sharing in global health research.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of our findings, we conclude that data sharing under existing mandates to share data (with minimal restrictions) risks perpetuating a neocolonial dynamic. To achieve equitable data sharing, adopting best practices in data sharing is necessary but insufficient. Structural inequalities in global health research must also be addressed. It is thus imperative that the structural changes needed to ensure equitable data sharing are incorporated into the broader dialogue on global health research.

Equitable Design and Use of Digital Surveillance Technologies During COVID-19: Norms and Concerns

Given the unprecedented scale of digital surveillance in the COVID-19 pandemic, designing and implementing digital technologies in ways that are equitable is critical now and in future epidemics and pandemics. Yet to date there has been very limited consideration about what is necessary to promote their equitable design and implementation. In this study, literature relating to the use of digital surveillance technologies during epidemics and pandemics was collected and thematically analyzed for ethical norms and concerns related to equity and social justice. Eleven norms are reported, including procedural fairness and inclusive approaches to design and implementation, designing to rectify or avoid exacerbating inequities, and fair access. Identified concerns relate to digital divides, stigma and discrimination, disparate risk of harm, and unfair design processes. We conclude by considering what dimensions of social justice the norms promote and whether identified concerns can be addressed by building the identified norms into technology design and implementation practice.

Data capture and sharing in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cause for concern

Routine health care and research have been profoundly influenced by digital-health technologies. These technologies range from primary data collection in electronic health records (EHRs) and administrative claims to web-based artificial-intelligence-driven analyses. There has been increased use of such health technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic, driven in part by the availability of these data. In some cases, this has resulted in profound and potentially long-lasting positive effects on medical research and routine health-care delivery. In other cases, high profile shortcomings have been evident, potentially attenuating the effect of-or representing a decreased appetite for-digital-health transformation. In this Series paper, we provide an overview of how facets of health technologies in routinely collected medical data (including EHRs and digital data sharing) have been used for COVID-19 research and tracking, and how these technologies might influence future pandemics and health-care research. We explore the strengths and weaknesses of digital-health research during the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss how learnings from COVID-19 might translate into new approaches in a post-pandemic era.

Advancing a Data Justice Framework for Public Health Surveillance

BACKGROUND

Bioethical debates about privacy, big data, and public health surveillance have not sufficiently engaged the perspectives of those being surveilled. The data justice framework suggests that big data applications have the potential to create disproportionate harm for socially marginalized groups. Using examples from our research on HIV surveillance for individuals incarcerated in jails, we analyze ethical issues in deploying big data in public health surveillance.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 24 people living with HIV who had been previously incarcerated in county jails about their perspectives on and experiences with HIV surveillance, as part of a larger study to characterize ethical considerations in leveraging big data techniques to enhance continuity of care for incarcerated people living with HIV.

RESULTS

Most participants expressed support for the state health department tracking HIV testing results and viral load data. Several viewed HIV surveillance as a violation of privacy, and several had actively avoided contact from state public health outreach workers. Participants were most likely to express reservations about surveillance when they viewed the state's motives as self-interested. Perspectives highlight the mistrust that structurally vulnerable people may have in the state's capacity to act as an agent of welfare. Findings suggest that adopting a nuanced, context-sensitive view on surveillance is essential.

CONCLUSIONS

Establishing trustworthiness through interpersonal interactions with public health personnel is important to reversing historical legacies of harm to racial minorities and structurally vulnerable groups. Empowering stakeholders to participate in the design and implementation of data infrastructure and governance is critical for advancing a data justice agenda, and can offset privacy concerns. The next steps in advancing the data justice framework in public health surveillance will be to innovate ways to represent the voices of structurally vulnerable groups in the design and governance of big data initiatives.

Equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics

BACKGROUND

Rapid data sharing can maximize the utility of data. In epidemics and pandemics like Zika, Ebola, and COVID-19, the case for such practices seems especially urgent and warranted. Yet rapidly sharing data widely has previously generated significant concerns related to equity. The continued lack of understanding and guidance on equitable data sharing raises the following questions: Should data sharing in epidemics and pandemics primarily advance utility, or should it advance equity as well? If so, what norms comprise equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics? Do these norms address the equity-related concerns raised by researchers, data providers, and other stakeholders? What tensions must be balanced between equity and other values?

METHODS

To explore these questions, we undertook a systematic scoping review of the literature on data sharing in epidemics and pandemics and thematically analyzed identified literature for its discussion of ethical values, norms, concerns, and tensions, with a particular (but not exclusive) emphasis on equity. We wanted to both understand how equity in data sharing is being conceptualized and draw out other important values and norms for data sharing in epidemics and pandemics.

RESULTS

We found that values of utility, equity, solidarity, and reciprocity were described, and we report their associated norms, including researcher recognition; rapid, real-time sharing; capacity development; and fair benefits to data generators, data providers, and source countries. The value of utility and its associated norms were discussed substantially more than others. Tensions between utility norms (e.g., rapid, real-time sharing) and equity norms (e.g., researcher recognition, equitable access) were raised.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found support for equity being advanced by data sharing in epidemics and pandemics. However, norms for equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics require further development, particularly in relation to power sharing and participatory approaches prioritizing inclusion. Addressing structural inequities in the wider global health landscape is also needed to achieve equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics.

A Systematic Literature Review of Ethical Challenges Related to Medical and Public Health Data Sharing in China

Although stakeholders in China have begun promoting medical and public health data sharing, a large portion of data cannot flow freely across research teams and borders and be converted into "big data." To identify the ethical challenges that are considered to hinder medical and public health data sharing, we performed a systematic literature review pertaining to medical and health data sharing in China. A total of 2959 unique records were retrieved through the database search, 61 of which were included in the final synthesis after full-text screening. This review provides an overview of the current ethical challenges and barriers involved in data sharing for healthcare purposes in China. Through the systematic review of evidence from peer-reviewed literature and dissertations, we identified barriers and ethical challenges grouped in a taxonomy of capacity building needs, balancing different stakeholders' interests, scientific and social value, and the data subjects' rights, public trust and engagement. Best practices and educational implications were suggested based on our findings.

Data sharing practices of health researchers in Africa: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the review is to map the existing evidence regarding the data-sharing practices of health researchers in African countries. This review will also identify perceptions; barriers; facilitators; ethical-, legal-, and author-reported recommendations; institutional- and funding-related aspects that are being considered by African health researchers on data sharing in Africa and, as a result, identify areas for development and improvement in health care on the continent.

INTRODUCTION

The sharing of health-related data has been widely discussed in the literature. However, sharing health-related data has yet to become a common practice among health researchers in Africa, which bears a large burden of the global health diseases. The sharing of health research data could lead to greater development and improvement in health care in Africa.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will incorporate studies that report on data sharing among health researchers in Africa. All primary, secondary, and gray literature that report on the practice of data sharing among health researchers in Africa will be included. Studies on data sharing on topics other than health-related data will be excluded. No language restrictions will be applied.

METHODS

The JBI scoping review methodological framework will be adopted. An initial search of databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, LILAC, and Web of Science will be conducted. All search results will be screened and relevant data extracted by two independent reviewers. Data extracted will be exported into JBI SUMARI. The findings will be presented in the final scoping review report and illustrated in a PRISMA flow diagram.

Towards an appropriate ethics framework for Health and Demographic Surveillance Systems (HDSS): learning from issues faced in diverse HDSS in sub-Saharan Africa

Introduction

Health and Demographic Surveillance Systems (HDSS) collect data on births, deaths and migration from relatively small, geographically defined populations primarily in Africa and Asia. HDSS occupy a grey area between research, healthcare and public health practice and it is unclear how ethics guidance that rely on a research-practice distinction apply to HDSS. This topic has received little attention in the literature. In this paper, based on empirical research across sub-Saharan Africa, we map out key ethical issues for HDSS and assess the relevance of current ethics guidance in relation to these findings.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study across seven HDSS sites in sub-Saharan Africa, including individual in-depth interviews and informal discussions with 68 research staff, document reviews and non-participant observations of surveillance activities. Qualitative data analysis drew on a framework approach led by a priori and emergent themes, drawing on the wider ethics and social science literature.

Results

There were diverse views on core ethical issues in HDSS, including regarding the strengths and challenges of community engagement, informed consent and data sharing processes. A key emerging issue was unfairness in the overall balance of benefits and burdens for residents and front-line staff when compared with other stakeholders, particularly given the socioeconomic contexts in which HDSS are generally conducted.

Conclusion

We argue that HDSS operate as non-traditional epidemiologic research projects but are often governed using ethics guidance developed for traditional forms of health research. There is a need for specific ethics guidance for HDSS which prioritises considerations around fairness, cost-effectiveness, ancillary care responsibilities, longitudinality and obligations of the global community to HDSS residents.

Mobile Health: making the leap to research and clinics

Health applications for mobile and wearable devices continue to experience tremendous growth both in the commercial and research sectors, but their impact on healthcare has yet to be fully realized. This commentary introduces three articles in a special issue that provides guidance on how to successfully address translational barriers to bringing mobile health technologies into clinical research and care. We also discuss how the cross-organizational sharing of data, software, and other digital resources can lower such barriers and accelerate progress across mobile health.

The ethics of data sharing and biobanking in health research

The importance of data sharing and biobanking are increasingly being recognised in global health research. Such practices are perceived to have the potential to promote science by maximising the utility of data and samples. However, they also raise ethical challenges which can be exacerbated by existing disparities in power, infrastructure and capacity. The Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR) convened in Stellenbosch, South Africa in November 2018, to explore the ethics of data sharing and biobanking in health research. Ninety-five participants from 35 countries drew on case studies and their experiences with sharing in their discussion of issues relating to respecting research participants and communities, promoting equitable sharing, and international and national approaches to governing data sharing and biobanking. In this editorial we will briefly review insights relating to each of these three themes.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer clinical and biomarkers data sharing resource document: Volume I-conceptual challenges

The sharing of clinical trial data and biomarker data sets among the scientific community, whether the data originates from pharmaceutical companies or academic institutions, is of critical importance to enable the development of new and improved cancer immunotherapy modalities. Through data sharing, a better understanding of current therapies in terms of their efficacy, safety and biomarker data profiles can be achieved. However, the sharing of these data sets involves a number of stakeholder groups including patients, researchers, private industry, scientific journals and professional societies. Each of these stakeholder groups has differing interests in the use and sharing of clinical trial and biomarker data, and the conflicts caused by these differing interests represent significant obstacles to effective, widespread sharing of data. Thus, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Biomarkers Committee convened to identify the current barriers to biomarker data sharing in immuno-oncology (IO) and to help in establishing professional standards for the responsible sharing of clinical trial data. The conclusions of the committee are described in two position papers: Volume I-conceptual challenges and Volume II-practical challenges, the first of which is presented in this manuscript. Additionally, the committee suggests actions by key stakeholders in the field (including organizations and professional societies) as the best path forward, encouraging the cultural shift needed to ensure responsible data sharing in the IO research setting.

Ethical challenges in pathogen sequencing: a systematic scoping review

Background: Going forward, the routine implementation of genomic surveillance activities and outbreak investigation is to be expected. We sought to systematically identify the emerging ethical challenges; and to systematically assess the gaps in ethical frameworks or thinking and identify where further work is needed to solve practical challenges.

Methods: We systematically searched indexed academic literature from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science from 2000 to April 2019 for peer-reviewed articles that substantively engaged in discussion of ethical issues in the use of pathogen genome sequencing technologies for diagnostic, surveillance and outbreak investigation.

Results: 28 articles were identified; nine United States, five United Kingdom, five The Netherlands, three Canada, two Switzerland, one Australia, two South Africa, and one Italy. Eight articles were specifically about the use of sequencing in HIV. Eleven were not specific to a particular disease. Results were organized into four themes: tensions between public and private interests; difficulties with translation from research to clinical and public health practice; the importance of community trust and support; equity and global partnerships; and the importance of context.

Conclusion: While pathogen sequencing has the potential to be transformative for public health, there are a number of key ethical issues that must be addressed, particularly around the conditions of use for pathogen sequence data. Ethical standards should be informed by public values, and further empirical work investigating stakeholders’ views are required. Development in the field should also be under-pinned by a strong commitment to values of justice, in particular global health equity.

Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide

BACKGROUND

Shifts in data sharing policy have increased researchers' access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical studies. Simultaneously the number of IPD meta-analyses (IPDMAs) is increasing. However, rates of data retrieval have not improved. Our goal was to describe the challenges of retrieving IPD for an IPDMA and provide practical guidance on obtaining and managing datasets based on a review of the literature and practical examples and observations.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, until January 2019, to identify publications focused on strategies to obtain IPD. In addition, we searched pharmaceutical websites and contacted industry organizations for supplemental information pertaining to recent advances in industry policy and practice. Finally, we documented setbacks and solutions encountered while completing a comprehensive IPDMA and drew on previous experiences related to seeking and using IPD.

RESULTS

Our scoping review identified 16 articles directly relevant for the conduct of IPDMAs. We present short descriptions of these articles alongside overviews of IPD sharing policies and procedures of pharmaceutical companies which display certification of Principles for Responsible Clinical Trial Data Sharing via Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America or European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations websites. Advances in data sharing policy and practice affected the way in which data is requested, obtained, stored and analyzed. For our IPDMA it took 6.5 years to collect and analyze relevant IPD and navigate additional administrative barriers. Delays in obtaining data were largely due to challenges in communication with study sponsors, frequent changes in data sharing policies of study sponsors, and the requirement for a diverse skillset related to research, administrative, statistical and legal issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of current data sharing practices and platforms as well as anticipation of necessary tasks and potential obstacles may reduce time and resources required for obtaining and managing data for an IPDMA. Sufficient project funding and timeline flexibility are pre-requisites for successful collection and analysis of IPD. IPDMA researchers must acknowledge the additional and unexpected responsibility they are placing on corresponding study authors or data sharing administrators and should offer assistance in readying data for sharing.

Advancing good governance in data sharing and biobanking - international aspects

Ethical and effective data-sharing among countries can be achieved by considering the interests of all relevant parties: research participants, researchers and funders. Fears of exploitation, however, both of research participants and researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), can undermine the free flow of data necessary for scientific advancement.

In this Open Letter, two case studies presented at the 2018 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research meeting on the Ethics of data sharing and biobanking in Cape Town, South Africa, function as the focal point for a reflection on the attributes of an ideal model of good data governance and how it can help support ethical best practices in biobanking and data sharing.

Consideration of the case studies as well as the literature indicate three broad principles that need to be reflected in an ideal data governance framework: (i) collaboration - both among researchers as well as between researchers and participants, (ii) fairness – ensuring that all parties in international collaborations, the data provider, primary data gathering LMIC researcher and the high income country (HIC) institution/funder are treated fairly, and (iii) working towards a level playing field – neither collaboration nor fairness can be effectively achieved with the existing power differential between HIC and LMIC researchers/institutions; it is therefore necessary to work towards achieving a more level playing field between partners in research collaborations.

Promoting good governance of data through fair, efficient and accountable governance frameworks can help build trust and ensure continued international data sharing.

Strength in Numbers: The WWARN Case Study of Purpose-Driven Data Sharing

Data are the basis for all scientific output. The sharing of data supporting that output is an important aspect of scientific communication, and is increasingly required by funders and publishers. Yet, academic advancement seldom recognizes or rewards data sharing. This article argues that although mandating data sharing will increase the amount of data available, this will not necessarily enable or encourage the secondary analyses needed to achieve its purported public good. We, therefore, need to build models that maximize the efficiency of processes for data collation and curation, and genuinely reward those engaged in data sharing and reuse. The WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network has 10 years of experience as a data platform, and its study group approach provides an example of how some of the challenges in equitable and impactful data-sharing and secondary use can be addressed, with a focus on the priorities of researchers in resource-limited settings.

Trust and the ethical challenges in the use of whole genome sequencing for tuberculosis surveillance: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives

BACKGROUND

Emerging genomic technologies promise more efficient infectious disease control. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly being used in tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis, surveillance, and epidemiology. However, while the use of WGS by public health agencies may raise ethical, legal, and socio-political concerns, these challenges are poorly understood.

METHOD

Between November 2017 and April 2018, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 key stakeholders across the fields of governance and policy, public health, and laboratory sciences representing the major jurisdictions currently using WGS in national TB programs. Thematic analysis of the interviews was conducted using NVivo 11.

RESULTS

Respondents identified several ethical and practical challenges associated with WGS in TB care and surveillance, all related to issues of trust, including: 1) the power of public health; 2) data sharing and profits derived from surveillance efforts; and 3) concerns regarding who has access to, and can benefit from, the technology. Additional challenges included: the potential utility that WGS adds to a public health program, the risks associated with linking necessary epidemiological metadata to the genomic data, and challenges associated with jurisdictional capacity to implement the technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful implementation of WGS is dependent on fostering relationships of trust between those working with genomics technology and those directly impacted by it, including clinicians. Building trust (a) between the public and the public health agencies and (b) within public health agencies themselves is critical due to the inherent complexity of WGS and its implementation for communicable disease control purposes.

Examining the Needs of Patient Stakeholders as Research Partners in Health Data Networks for Translational Research

Patient stakeholders are getting increasingly involved in research health data networks, particularly as research partners. However, tools do not exist to help effectively orient, educate, and engage patient stakeholders as they take on these roles. Using a human centered design approach, we conducted a patient stakeholder needs assessment qualitative study to identify key user needs to drive design recommendations for development of an online education and engagement tool for research health data networks. We found three key needs related to multiple role identities, motivations and expectations for participation on research teams, and patient journeys. Design recommendations derived from the needs assessment are discussed that can support future tool design and testing.

Data management and sharing policy: the first step towards promoting data sharing

BACKGROUND

Health-related research funders, regulators and journals expect that de-identified individual-level health data be shared widely, with as few restrictions as possible; yet, in reality, the volume of shared data remains low.

MAIN BODY

Health researchers and other data producers are reluctant to share their data unless they are confident that their datasets are of high quality and reliable, and that they are used in accordance with the values and aims of their institutions. We argue that having an institutional, departmental or group data management and sharing policy is the first step towards encouraging researchers and healthcare professionals to share their data more widely. Our paper outlines the elements of a data management and sharing policy, which should include aims consistent with those of the institution as well as with data management procedures, models of data sharing, request procedures, consent models and cost recovery mechanisms. A policy would help an institution, department or group maximise the use of its data and protect the interests of the institution and its members. We base our recommendations on our experience collecting and curating data for large clinical trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries, facilitating the sharing of datasets with secondary users, whilst teaching data management and conducting empirical research on data sharing. Although the fundamentals of a policy are general, the paper is focused on the low- and middle-income country context.

CONCLUSION

We argue that having an institutional, departmental or group data management and sharing policy is the first step in promoting data sharing.

Challenges arising when seeking broad consent for health research data sharing: a qualitative study of perspectives in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Research funders, regulatory agencies, and journals are increasingly expecting that individual-level data from health research will be shared. Broad consent to such sharing is considered appropriate, feasible and acceptable in low- and middle-income settings, but to date limited empirical research has been conducted to inform the design of such processes. We examined stakeholder perspectives about how best to seek broad consent to sharing data from the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, which implemented a data sharing policy and broad consent to data sharing in January 2016.

METHODS

Between February and August 2017 qualitative data were collected at two sites, Bangkok and the Thai-Myanmar border town of Mae Sot. We conducted eighteen semi-structured interviews. We also conducted four focus group discussions with a total of nineteen people. Descriptive and thematic coding informed analysis of aspects of data sharing that are considered most important to inform participants about, and the best ways to explain complex and abstract topics relating to data sharing.

RESULTS

The findings demonstrated that clinical trial participants prioritise information about the potential benefits and harms of data sharing. Stakeholders made multiple suggestions for clarifying information provided about data sharing on such topics. There was significant variation amongst stakeholders' perspectives about how much information should be provided about data sharing, and it was clear that effective information provision should be responsive to the study, the study population, the individual research participant and the research context.

CONCLUSIONS

Effectively communicating about data sharing with research participants is challenging in practice, highlighting the importance of robust and effective data sharing governance in this context. Broad consent should incorporate effective and efficient explanations of data sharing to promote informed decision-making, without impeding research participants' understandings of key aspects of the research from which data will be shared. Further work is required to refine both the development of core information about data sharing to be provided to all research participants, and appropriate solutions for context specific-challenges arising when explaining data sharing.

Privacy Policy and Technology in Biomedical Data Science

Privacyis an important consideration when sharing clinical data, which often contain sensitive information. Adequate protection to safeguard patient privacy and to increase public trust in biomedical research is paramount. This review covers topics in policy and technology in the context of clinical data sharing. We review policy articles related to (a) the Common Rule, HIPAA privacy and security rules, and governance; (b) patients' viewpoints and consent practices; and (c) research ethics. We identify key features of the revised Common Rule and the most notable changes since its previous version. We address data governance for research in addition to the increasing emphasis on ethical and social implications. Research ethics topics include data sharing best practices, use of data from populations of low socioeconomic status (SES), recent updates to institutional review board (IRB) processes to protect human subjects' data, and important concerns about the limitations of current policies to address data deidentification. In terms of technology, we focus on articles that have applicability in real world health care applications: deidentification methods that comply with HIPAA, data anonymization approaches to satisfy well-acknowledged issues in deidentified data, encryption methods to safeguard data analyses, and privacy-preserving predictive modeling. The first two technology topics are mostly relevant to methodologies that attempt to sanitize structured or unstructured data. The third topic includes analysis on encrypted data. The last topic includes various mechanisms to build statistical models without sharing raw data.

Ethical concerns on sharing genomic data including patients' family members

Background

Platforms for sharing genomic and phenotype data have been developed to promote genomic research, while maximizing the utility of existing datasets and minimizing the burden on participants. The value of genomic analysis of trios or family members has increased, especially in rare diseases and cancers. This article aims to argue the necessity of protection when sharing data from both patients and family members.

Main text

Sharing patients’ and family members’ data collectively raises an ethical tension between the value of datasets and the rights of participants, and increases the risk of re-identification. However, current data-sharing policies have no specific safeguards or provisions for familial data sharing. A quantitative survey conducted on 10,881 general adults in Japan indicated that they expected stronger protection mechanisms when their family members’ clinical and/or genomic data were shared together, as compared to when only their data were shared. A framework that respects decision-making and the right of withdrawal of participants, including family members, along with ensuring usefulness and security of data is needed. To enable this, we propose recommendations on ancillary safeguards for familial data sharing according to the stakeholders, namely, initial researchers, genomic researchers, data submitters, database operators, institutional review boards, and the public and participants.

Conclusions

Families have played significant roles in genetic research, and its value is re-illuminated in the era of genomic medicine. It is important to make progress in data sharing while simultaneously protecting the privacy and interests of patients and families, and return its benefits to them.

Balancing the local and the universal in maintaining ethical access to a genomics biobank

BACKGROUND

Issues of balancing data accessibility with ethical considerations and governance of a genomics research biobank, Generation Scotland, are explored within the evolving policy landscape of the past ten years. During this time data sharing and open data access have become increasingly important topics in biomedical research. Decisions around data access are influenced by local arrangements for governance and practices such as linkage to health records, and the global through policies for biobanking and the sharing of data with large-scale biomedical research data resources and consortia.

METHODS

We use a literature review of policy relevant documents which apply to the conduct of biobanks in two areas: support for open access and the protection of data subjects and researchers managing a bioresource. We present examples of decision making within a biobank based upon observations of the Generation Scotland Access Committee. We reflect upon how the drive towards open access raises ethical dilemmas for established biorepositories containing data and samples from human subjects.

RESULTS

Despite much discussion in science policy literature about standardisation, the contextual aspects of biobanking are often overlooked. Using our engagement with GS we demonstrate the importance of local arrangements in the creation of a responsive ethical approach to biorepository governance. We argue that governance decisions regarding access to the biobank are intertwined with considerations about maintenance and viability at the local level. We show that in addition to the focus upon ever more universal and standardised practices, the local expertise gained in the management of such repositories must be supported.

CONCLUSIONS

A commitment to open access in genomics research has found almost universal backing in science and health policy circles, but repositories of data and samples from human subjects may have to operate under managed access, to protect privacy, align with participant consent and ensure that the resource can be managed in a sustainable way. Data access committees need to be reflexive and flexible, to cope with changing technology and opportunities and threats from the wider data sharing environment. To understand these interactions also involves nurturing what is particular about the biobank in its local context.

Sharing Individual-Level Health Research Data: Experiences, Challenges and a Research Agenda

Since January 2016, the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) has trialled a data-sharing policy where requests to access research datasets are processed through a Data Access Committee. In this paper, we share our experiences establishing data management systems and data-sharing infrastructure including a data-sharing policy, data access committee and related procedures. We identified a number of practical and ethical challenges including requests for datasets collected without specific or broad consent to data sharing and requests from pharmaceutical companies for data to support drug registration applications. We also encountered significant resource constraints which required the development of appropriate human resources and infrastructure. We suggest a research agenda to promote responsible and equitable data sharing while safeguarding the rights and interests of research participants and researchers.

Ethics approval in applications for open-access clinical trial data: An analysis of researcher statements to clinicalstudydatarequest.com

Although there are a number of online platforms for patient-level clinical trial data sharing from industry sponsors, they are not very harmonized regarding the role of local ethics approval in the research proposal review process. The first and largest of these platforms is ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com (CSDR), which includes over three thousand trials from thirteen sponsors including GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Bayer. CSDR asks applicants to state whether they have received ethics approval for their research proposal, but in most cases does not require that they submit evidence of approval. However, the website does require that applicants without ethical approval state the reason it was not required. In order to examine the perspectives of researchers on this topic, we coded every response to that question received by CSDR between June 2014 and February 2017. Of 111 applicants who stated they were exempt from ethics approval, 63% mentioned de-identification, 57% mentioned the use of existing data, 33% referred to local or jurisdictional regulations, and 20% referred to the approvals obtained by the original study. We conclude by examining the experience of CSDR within the broader context of the access mechanisms and policies currently being used by other data sharing platforms, and discuss how our findings might be used to help clinical trial data providers design clear and informative access documents.

Research data management in academic institutions: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to describe the volume, topics, and methodological nature of the existing research literature on research data management in academic institutions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a scoping review by searching forty literature databases encompassing a broad range of disciplines from inception to April 2016. We included all study types and data extracted on study design, discipline, data collection tools, and phase of the research data lifecycle.

RESULTS

We included 301 articles plus 10 companion reports after screening 13,002 titles and abstracts and 654 full-text articles. Most articles (85%) were published from 2010 onwards and conducted within the sciences (86%). More than three-quarters of the articles (78%) reported methods that included interviews, cross-sectional, or case studies. Most articles (68%) included the Giving Access to Data phase of the UK Data Archive Research Data Lifecycle that examines activities such as sharing data. When studies were grouped into five dominant groupings (Stakeholder, Data, Library, Tool/Device, and Publication), data quality emerged as an integral element.

CONCLUSION

Most studies relied on self-reports (interviews, surveys) or accounts from an observer (case studies) and we found few studies that collected empirical evidence on activities amongst data producers, particularly those examining the impact of research data management interventions. As well, fewer studies examined research data management at the early phases of research projects. The quality of all research outputs needs attention, from the application of best practices in research data management studies, to data producers depositing data in repositories for long-term use.

Beyond Our Borders? Public Resistance to Global Genomic Data Sharing

Prospects have never seemed better for a truly global approach to science to improve human health, with leaders of national initiatives laying out their vision of a worldwide network of related projects. An extensive literature addresses obstacles to global genomic data sharing, yet a series of public polls suggests that the scientific community may be overlooking a significant barrier: potential public resistance to data sharing across national borders. In several large United States surveys, university researchers in other countries were deemed the least acceptable group of data users, and a just-completed US survey found a marked increase in privacy and security concerns related to data access by non-US researchers. Furthermore, diminished support for sharing beyond national borders is not unique to the US, although the limited data from outside the US suggest variation across countries as well as demographic groups. Possible sources of resistance include apprehension about privacy and security protections. Strategies for building public support include making the affirmative case for global data sharing, addressing privacy, security, and other legitimate concerns, and investigating public concerns in greater depth.

Sweat, Skepticism, and Uncharted Territory: A Qualitative Study of Opinions on Data Sharing Among Public Health Researchers and Research Participants in Mumbai, India

Efforts to internalize data sharing in research practice have been driven largely by developing international norms that have not incorporated opinions from researchers in low- and middle-income countries. We sought to identify the issues around ethical data sharing in the context of research involving women and children in urban India. We interviewed researchers, managers, and research participants associated with a Mumbai non-governmental organization, as well as researchers from other organizations and members of ethics committees. We conducted 22 individual semi-structured interviews and involved 44 research participants in focus group discussions. We used framework analysis to examine ideas about data and data sharing in general; its potential benefits or harms, barriers, obligations, and governance; and the requirements for consent. Both researchers and participants were generally in favor of data sharing, although limited experience amplified their reservations. We identified three themes: concerns that the work of data producers may not receive appropriate acknowledgment, skepticism about the process of sharing, and the fact that the terrain of data sharing was essentially uncharted and confusing. To increase data sharing in India, we need to provide guidelines, protocols, and examples of good practice in terms of consent, data preparation, screening of applications, and what individuals and organizations can expect in terms of validation, acknowledgment, and authorship.

Perceived Benefits, Harms, and Views About How to Share Data Responsibly: A Qualitative Study of Experiences With and Attitudes Toward Data Sharing Among Research Staff and Community Representatives in Thailand

The Thailand Major Overseas Programme coordinates large multi-center studies in tropical medicine and generates vast amounts of data. As the data sharing movement gains momentum, we wanted to understand attitudes and experiences of relevant stakeholders about what constitutes good data sharing practice. We conducted 15 interviews and three focus groups discussions involving 25 participants and found that they generally saw data sharing as something positive. Data sharing was viewed as a means to contribute to scientific progress and lead to better quality analysis, better use of resources, greater accountability, and more outputs. However, there were also important reservations including potential harms to research participants, their communities, and the researchers themselves. Given these concerns, several areas for discussion were identified: data standardization, appropriate consent models, and governance.

Developing Ethical Practices for Public Health Research Data Sharing in South Africa: The Views and Experiences From a Diverse Sample of Research Stakeholders

The abundance of South African clinical and public health research data has the potential to unlock important and valuable future advances in biomedical science. Amid increasing calls for more effective sharing of individual-level data, commitment to promote access to research data is evident within South Africa’s public research sector, but national guidance and regulation are absent. This qualitative study examined the perceptions, experiences and concerns of 32 research stakeholders about data-sharing practices. There was consensus about the utility of data sharing in publicly funded health research. However, disparate views emerged about the possible harms and benefits of sharing data and how these should be weighed. The relative dearth of policies governing data-sharing practices needs to be addressed and a framework of support developed that incentivizes data-sharing practices for researchers that are both ethical and effective.

Broad Consent for Genomic Research and Biobanking: Perspectives from Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Genomic research and biobanking are increasingly being conducted in the context of collaborations between researchers in high-income countries and those in low- and middle-income countries. Although these scientific advancements have presented unique opportunities for researchers to contribute to cutting-edge scientific projects and address important health problems, they have also challenged existing ethical and regulatory frameworks, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Broad consent is a model that allows the use of human biological samples and associated data in future research that may be unrelated to the original study. Drawing on emerging perspectives in low- and middle-income countries, we argue that broad consent is equivalent to consent to governance and that a robust governance framework for genomics and biobanking should seek to promote global health and research equity and take into account five key elements: respect, authentic community engagement and trust building, the preservation of privacy and confidentiality, feedback of results, and capacity strengthening.

Sharing Public Health Research Data: Toward the Development of Ethical Data-Sharing Practice in Low- and Middle-Income Settings

It is increasingly recognized that effective and appropriate data sharing requires the development of models of good data-sharing practice capable of taking seriously both the potential benefits to be gained and the importance of ensuring that the rights and interests of participants are respected and that risk of harms is minimized. Calls for the greater sharing of individual-level data from biomedical and public health research are receiving support among researchers and research funders. Despite its potential importance, data sharing presents important ethical, social, and institutional challenges in low-income settings. In this article, we report on qualitative research conducted in five low- and middle-income countries exploring the experiences of key research stakeholders and their views about what constitutes good data-sharing practice.

Involving Research Stakeholders in Developing Policy on Sharing Public Health Research Data in Kenya: Views on Fair Process for Informed Consent, Access Oversight, and Community Engagement

Increased global sharing of public health research data has potential to advance scientific progress but may present challenges to the interests of research stakeholders, particularly in low-to-middle income countries. Policies for data sharing should be responsive to public views, but there is little evidence of the systematic study of these from low-income countries. This qualitative study explored views on fair data-sharing processes among 60 stakeholders in Kenya with varying research experience, using a deliberative approach. Stakeholders' attitudes were informed by perceptions of benefit and concerns for research data sharing, including risks of stigmatization, loss of privacy, and undermining scientific careers and validity, reported in detail elsewhere. In this article, we discuss institutional trust-building processes seen as central to perceptions of fairness in sharing research data in this setting, including forms of community involvement, individual prior awareness and agreement to data sharing, independence and accountability of governance mechanisms, and operating under a national framework.

Trust, Respect, and Reciprocity: Informing Culturally Appropriate Data-Sharing Practice in Vietnam

International science funders and publishers are driving a growing trend in data sharing. There is mounting pressure on researchers in low- and middle-income settings to conform to new sharing policies, despite minimal empirically grounded accounts of the ethical challenges of implementing the policies in these settings. This study used in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 48 stakeholders in Vietnam to explore the experiences, attitudes, and expectations that inform ethical and effective approaches to sharing clinical research data. Distinct views on the role of trust, respect, and reciprocity were among those that emerged to inform culturally appropriate best practices. We conclude by discussing the challenges that authors of data-sharing policies should consider in this unique context.

Best Practices for Ethical Sharing of Individual-Level Health Research Data From Low- and Middle-Income Settings

Sharing individual-level data from clinical and public health research is increasingly being seen as a core requirement for effective and efficient biomedical research. This article discusses the results of a systematic review and multisite qualitative study of key stakeholders' perspectives on best practices in ethical data sharing in low- and middle-income settings. Our research suggests that for data sharing to be effective and sustainable, multiple social and ethical requirements need to be met. An effective model of data sharing will be one in which considered judgments will need to be made about how best to achieve scientific progress, minimize risks of harm, promote fairness and reciprocity, and build and sustain trust.