Neither carrots nor sticks? Challenges surrounding data sharing from the perspective of research funding agencies-A qualitative expert interview study

Current best practices and future opportunities for reproducible findings using large-scale neuroimaging in psychiatry

Research into the brain basis of psychopathology is challenging due to the heterogeneity of psychiatric disorders, extensive comorbidities, underdiagnosis or overdiagnosis, multifaceted interactions with genetics and life experiences, and the highly multivariate nature of neural correlates. Therefore, increasingly larger datasets that measure more variables in larger cohorts are needed to gain insights. In this review, we present current "best practice" approaches for using existing databases, collecting and sharing new repositories for big data analyses, and future directions for big data in neuroimaging and psychiatry with an emphasis on contributing to collaborative efforts and the challenges of multi-study data analysis.

Investigation of research quality and transparency in neurosurgery through the utilization of open science practices

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Neurosurgical research is a rapidly evolving field, with numerous studies continuously published. As the body of research grows, upholding high-quality standards becomes increasingly essential. Open science practices offer tools to ensure quality and transparency. However, the prevalence of these practices remains unclear. This study investigated the extent to which neurosurgical publications have implemented open science practices.

METHODS

Five open science practices (preprint, equator guidelines, published peer review comments, preregistration, and open accessibility to data and methods) were measured from five top-ranked neurosurgical journals (Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Review, and Acta Neurochirurgica), according to Google Scholar. One hundred fifty articles were randomly sampled from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Two reviewers analyzed these articles for their utilization of open science practices. A third reviewer settled disagreements.

RESULTS

One journal required (20%) and three journals (60%) recommended utilizing EQUATOR guidelines. Three journals (60%) allowed preprints, and all five journals (100%) recommended or required preregistration of clinical trials, but only two (40%) recommended preregistration for systematic reviews (Fig. 1). All five journals (100%) recommended or required methods to be publicly available, but none (0%) published peer-review comments. Neurosurgical Review utilized the most open science practices, with a mean utilization of 1.4 open science practices per publication versus 0.9 across the other four journals (p < 0.001). Moreover, Neurosurgical Review significantly utilized more open science practices versus Journal of Neurosurgery (p < 0.05) and World Neurosurgery (p < 0.05). Both randomized controlled trials (p < 0.001) and systematic reviews (p < 0.001) significantly utilized more open science practices compared to observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advocacy from neurosurgical journals, the adoption of open science practices still needs improvement. Implementing incentives and clearer requirements may prove beneficial. Promoting these practices is crucial to enhancing research quality in neurosurgery.

Data as scientific currency: Challenges experienced by researchers with sharing health data in sub-Saharan Africa

Innovative information-sharing techniques and rapid access to stored research data as scientific currency have proved highly beneficial in healthcare and health research. Yet, researchers often experience conflict between data sharing to promote health-related scientific knowledge for the common good and their personal academic advancement. There is a scarcity of studies exploring the perspectives of health researchers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) regarding the challenges with data sharing in the context of data-intensive research. The study began with a quantitative survey and research, after which the researchers engaged in a qualitative study. This qualitative cross-sectional baseline study reports on the challenges faced by health researchers, in terms of data sharing. In-depth interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams between July 2022 and April 2023 with 16 health researchers from 16 different countries across SSA. We employed purposive and snowballing sampling techniques to invite participants via email. The recorded interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed thematically using ATLAS.ti. Five recurrent themes and several subthemes emerged related to (1) individual researcher concerns (fears regarding data sharing, publication and manuscript pressure), (2) structural issues impacting data sharing, (3) recognition in academia (scooping of research data, acknowledgement and research incentives) (4) ethical challenges experienced by health researchers in SSA (confidentiality and informed consent, commercialisation and benefit sharing) and (5) legal lacunae (gaps in laws and regulations). Significant discomfort about data sharing exists amongst health researchers in this sample of respondents from SSA, resulting in a reluctance to share data despite acknowledging the scientific benefits of such sharing. This discomfort is related to the lack of adequate guidelines and governance processes in the context of health research collaborations, both locally and internationally. Consequently, concerns about ethical and legal issues are increasing. Resources are needed in SSA to improve the quality, value and veracity of data-as these are ethical imperatives. Strengthening data governance via robust guidelines, legislation and appropriate data sharing agreements will increase trust amongst health researchers and data donors alike.

Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies

Sharing research data has great potential to benefit science and society. However, data sharing is still not common practice. Since public research funding agencies have a particular impact on research and researchers, the question arises: Are public funding agencies morally obligated to promote data sharing? We argue from a research ethics perspective that public funding agencies have several pro tanto obligations requiring them to promote data sharing. However, there are also pro tanto obligations that speak against promoting data sharing in general as well as with regard to particular instruments of such promotion. We examine and weigh these obligations and conclude that all things considered funders ought to promote the sharing of data. Even the instrument of mandatory data sharing policies can be justified under certain conditions.

German funders' data sharing policies-A qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Data sharing is commonly seen as beneficial for science but is not yet common practice. Research funding agencies are known to play a key role in promoting data sharing, but German funders' data sharing policies appear to lag behind in international comparison. This study aims to answer the question of how German data sharing experts inside and outside funding agencies perceive and evaluate German funders' data sharing policies and overall efforts to promote data sharing.

METHODS

This study is based on sixteen guided expert interviews with representatives of German funders and German research data experts from stakeholder organisations, who shared their perceptions of German' funders efforts to promote data sharing. By applying the method of qualitative content analysis to our interview data, we categorise and describe noteworthy aspects of the German data sharing policy landscape and illustrate our findings with interview passages.

RESULTS

We present our findings in five sections to distinguish our interviewees' perceptions on a) the status quo of German funders' data sharing policies, b) the role of funders in promoting data sharing, c) current and potential measures by funders to promote data sharing, d) general barriers to those measures, and e) the implementation of more binding data sharing requirements.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Although funders are perceived to be important promoters and facilitators of data sharing throughout our interviews, only few German funding agencies have data sharing policies in place. Several interviewees stated that funders could do more, for example by providing incentives for data sharing or by introducing more concrete policies. Our interviews suggest the academic freedom of grantees is widely perceived as an obstacle for German funders in introducing mandatory data sharing requirements. However, some interviewees stated that stricter data sharing requirements could be justified if data sharing is a part of good scientific practice.

Boosting pathogen genomics and bioinformatics workforce in Africa

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of genomic data has established its fundamental value in public health surveillance, research and development, and precision medicine. In Africa, severe shortages of competent experts in genomics and bioinformatics, few opportunities for research, and inadequate genomic infrastructure have had a knock-on effect on the use of NGS technologies for research and public health practice. Several reasons-ranging from poor funding, inadequate infrastructure for training and practice, to brain drain-might partly account for the scarcity of genomics and bioinformatics expertise in the region. In recognition of these shortcomings and the importance of NGS genomic data, which was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic in mid-2021, the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) through the Africa Pathogen Genomics Initiative began building and expanding Africa's workforce in pathogen surveillance. By the end of 2022, the Africa CDC in collaboration with its partners and centres of excellence had trained 413 personnel, mostly from public health institutions, in 53 (96%) of 55 African Union Member States. Although this training has increased genomics, bioinformatics, and genomic epidemiology literacy, and genomic-informed pathogen surveillance, there is still a need for a strategic and sustainable public health workforce development in Africa.

What are the bottlenecks to health data sharing in Switzerland? An interview study

BACKGROUND

While health data sharing for research purposes is strongly supported in principle, it can be challenging to implement in practice. Little is known about the actual bottlenecks to health data sharing in Switzerland.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to assess the obstacles to Swiss health data sharing, including legal, ethical and logistical bottlenecks.

METHODS

We identified 37 key stakeholders in data sharing via the Swiss Personalised Health Network ecosystem, defined as being an expert on sharing sensitive health data for research purposes at a Swiss university hospital (or a Swiss disease cohort) or being a stakeholder in data sharing at a public or private institution that uses such data. We conducted semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed, translated when necessary, and de-identified. The entire research team discussed the transcripts and notes taken during each interview before an inductive coding process occurred.

RESULTS

Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted (primarily in English) with 17 individuals representing lawyers, data protection officers, ethics committee members, scientists, project managers, bioinformaticians, clinical trials unit members, and biobank stakeholders. Most respondents felt that it was not the actual data transfer that was the bottleneck but rather the processes and systems around it, which were considered time-intensive and confusing. The templates developed by the Swiss Personalised Health Network and the Swiss General Consent process were generally felt to have streamlined processes significantly. However, these logistics and data quality issues remain practical bottlenecks in Swiss health data sharing. Areas of legal uncertainty include privacy laws when sharing data internationally, questions of "who owns the data", inconsistencies created because the Swiss general consent is perceived as being implemented differently across different institutions, and definitions and operationalisation of anonymisation and pseudo-anonymisation. Many participants desired to create a "culture of data sharing" and to recognise that data sharing is a process with many steps, not an event, that requires sustainability efforts and personnel. Some participants also stressed a desire to move away from data sharing and the current privacy focus towards processes that facilitate data access.

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitating a data access culture in Switzerland may require legal clarifications, further education about the process and resources to support data sharing, and further investment in sustainable infrastructureby funders and institutions.

Ten simple rules for starting FAIR discussions in your community

This work presents 10 rules that provide guidance and recommendations on how to start up discussions around the implementation of the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles and creation of standardised ways of working. These recommendations will be particularly relevant if you are unsure where to start, who to involve, what the benefits and barriers of standardisation are, and if little work has been done in your discipline to standardise research workflows. When applied, these rules will support a more effective way of engaging the community with discussions on standardisation and practical implementation of the FAIR principles.

The Role of Vaccination Centers in a National Mass Immunization Campaign-Policymaker Insights from the German COVID-19 Pandemic Vaccine Roll-Out

During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, Germany, like other high-income countries, introduced mass vaccination centers for administering vaccinations. This qualitative study aimed to examine the role that these novel, temporary government healthcare structures played in a mass immunization roll-out and how they can be optimally deployed. In addition, learnings for general emergency preparedness were explored. A total of 27 high-level policymakers responsible for planning and implementing the COVID vaccination campaign at the national and state level in Germany were interviewed in May and June 2022. The semi-structured interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Interviewees indicated that mass vaccination structures played an essential role with respect to controllability, throughput, accessibility and openness in line with the key success criteria vaccination coverage, speed and accessibility. In contrast to the regular vaccination structures (private medical practices and occupational health services), public administration has direct authority over mass vaccination centers, allowing for reliable vaccine access prioritization and documentation. The deployment of vaccination centers should be guided by vaccine availability and demand, and vaccine requirements related to logistics, as well as local capacities, i.e., public-health-service strength and the physician density, to ensure effective, timely and equitable access. Improvements to the capacity use, scalability and flexibility of governmental vaccination structures are warranted for future pandemics.

Recommendations on data sharing in HIV drug resistance research

 • Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) drug resistance has implications for antiretroviral treatment strategies and for containing the HIV pandemic because the development of HIV drug resistance leads to the requirement for antiretroviral drugs that may be less effective, less well-tolerated, and more expensive than those used in first-line regimens.  • HIV drug resistance studies are designed to determine which HIV mutations are selected by antiretroviral drugs and, in turn, how these mutations affect antiretroviral drug susceptibility and response to future antiretroviral treatment regimens.  • Such studies collectively form a vital knowledge base essential for monitoring global HIV drug resistance trends, interpreting HIV genotypic tests, and updating HIV treatment guidelines.  • Although HIV drug resistance data are collected in many studies, such data are often not publicly shared, prompting the need to recommend best practices to encourage and standardize HIV drug resistance data sharing.  • In contrast to other viruses, sharing HIV sequences from phylogenetic studies of transmission dynamics requires additional precautions as HIV transmission is criminalized in many countries and regions.  • Our recommendations are designed to ensure that the data that contribute to HIV drug resistance knowledge will be available without undue hardship to those publishing HIV drug resistance studies and without risk to people living with HIV.