Regulatory Frameworks for Clinical Trial Data Sharing: Scoping Review

Ethical framework for FACILITATE: a foundation for the return of clinical trial data to participants

This paper discusses the importance of return of clinical trial data to patients in the context of the FACILITATE project that aims to develop a participant-centric approach for the systematic return of individual clinical trial data. It reflects on the need for an ethical framework to support the return of clinical trial data. The discussion revolves around the developing FACILITATE ethical framework, specifically focusing on the ethical principles that form the foundation of the framework and guidance on how to implement those principles into practice.

Identifying the capabilities for creating next-generation registries: a guide for data leaders and a case for "registry science"

OBJECTIVE

The increasing demands for curated, high-quality research data are driving the emergence of a novel registry type. The need to assemble, curate, and export this data grows, and the conventional simplicity of registry models is driving the need for advanced, multimodal data registries-the dawn of the next-generation registry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The article provides an outline of the technology roles and responsibilities needed for successful implementations of next-generation registries.

RESULTS

We propose a framework for the planning, construction, maintenance, and sustainability of this new registry type.

DISCUSSION

A rubric of organizational, computational, and human resource needs is discussed in detail, backed by over 40 years of combined in-the-field experiences by the authors.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel field, registry science, within the clinical research informatics domain, has arisen to offer its insights into conceiving, structuring, and sustaining this new breed of tools.

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.

Integrity of randomized clinical trials: Performance of integrity tests and checklists requires assessment

The integrity of randomized clinical trials (RCT) has become a concern owing to a recent rise in the number of retractions and the repercussions this has for evidence-based patient care. However, there is little research on the subject of RCT integrity assessment. Recent literature reviews have revealed that journals' authors' instructions concerning integrity and their investigation policies concerning allegations of misconduct are heterogeneous. The judicious use of integrity tests applied to RCT manuscripts is hampered by an absence of data concerning misconduct prevalence (pre-test probability), a failure to evaluate test performance (validity) and a lack of consensus over a gold standard (against which test accuracy can be evaluated). These deficiencies hinder the post-publication correction of RCT records, the integrity evaluations in systematic reviews of RCTs and the prospective application of preventive solutions in RCT peer-review and preprint assessment. Dealing with the current controversy about trustworthiness of RCT evidence requires a strong investment in research, reform and education concerning research integrity. The purpose of this review article is to highlight the current limitations in dealing with trial integrity-related concerns and to propose solutions to some of these issues.

Perspectives on Data Sharing in Persons With Spinal Cord Injury

Open data sharing of clinical research aims to improve transparency and support novel scientific discoveries. There are also risks, including participant identification and the potential for stigmatization. The perspectives of persons participating in research are needed to inform open data-sharing policies. The aim of the current study was to determine perspectives on data sharing in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI), including risks and benefits, and types of data people are most willing to share. A secondary aim was to examine predictors of willingness to share data. Persons with SCIs in the United States and Canada completed a survey developed and disseminated through various channels, including our community partner, the North American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium. The study collected data from 232 participants, with 52.2% from Canada and 42.2% from the United States, and the majority completed the survey in English. Most participants had previously participated in research and had been living with an SCI for ≥5 years. Overall, most participants reported that the potential benefits of data sharing outweighed the negatives, with persons with SCI seen as the most trustworthy partners for data sharing. The highest levels of concern were that information could be stolen and companies might use the information for marketing purposes. Persons with SCI were generally supportive of data sharing for research purposes. Clinical trials should consider including a statement on open data sharing in informed consents to better acknowledge the contribution of research participants in future studies.

Structural under-reporting of informed consent, data handling and sharing, ethical approval, and application of Open Science principles as proxies for study quality conduct in COVID-19 research: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic required science to provide answers rapidly to combat the outbreak. Hence, the reproducibility and quality of conducting research may have been threatened, particularly regarding privacy and data protection, in varying ways around the globe. The objective was to investigate aspects of reporting informed consent and data handling as proxies for study quality conduct.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Embase. The search was performed on November 8th, 2020. Studies with hospitalised patients diagnosed with COVID-19 over 18 years old were eligible for inclusion. With a focus on informed consent, data were extracted on the study design, prestudy protocol registration, ethical approval, data anonymisation, data sharing and data transfer as proxies for study quality. For reasons of comparison, data regarding country income level, study location and journal impact factor were also collected.

RESULTS

972 studies were included. 21.3% of studies reported informed consent, 42.6% reported waivers of consent, 31.4% did not report consent information and 4.7% mentioned other types of consent. Informed consent reporting was highest in clinical trials (94.6%) and lowest in retrospective cohort studies (15.0%). The reporting of consent versus no consent did not differ significantly by journal impact factor (p=0.159). 16.8% of studies reported a prestudy protocol registration or design. Ethical approval was described in 90.9% of studies. Information on anonymisation was provided in 17.0% of studies. In 257 multicentre studies, 1.2% reported on data sharing agreements, and none reported on Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable data principles. 1.2% reported on open data. Consent was most often reported in the Middle East (42.4%) and least often in North America (4.7%). Only one report originated from a low-income country.

DISCUSSION

Informed consent and aspects of data handling and sharing were under-reported in publications concerning COVID-19 and differed between countries, which strains study quality conduct when in dire need of answers.

Open video data sharing in developmental science and clinical practice

In behavioral research and clinical practice video data has rarely been shared or pooled across sites due to ethical concerns of confidentiality, although the need of shared large-scaled datasets remains increasing. This demand is even more imperative when data-heavy computer-based approaches are involved. To share data while abiding by privacy protection rules, a critical question arises whether efforts at data de-identification reduce data utility? We addressed this question by showcasing an established and video-based diagnostic tool for detecting neurological deficits. We demonstrated for the first time that, for analyzing infant neuromotor functions, pseudonymization by face-blurring video recordings is a viable approach. The redaction did not affect classification accuracy for either human assessors or artificial intelligence methods, suggesting an adequate and easy-to-apply solution for sharing behavioral video data. Our work shall encourage more innovative solutions to share and merge stand-alone video datasets into large data pools to advance science and public health.

Rapid review on monkeypox policies among the G20 nations: relevance to policy and practitioner

Background: Monkeypox has been declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the WHO Director General (WHO-DG). Most of the G20 nations have reported Monkeypox outbreak. Policies developed and implemented in G20 countries for the prevention and control of monkeypox preparedness and response have global consequences. This rapid review aimed to map the monkeypox prevention and control policies planned and implemented in G20 nations in line with temporary recommendations issued by the WHO-DG. Methods: We mapped monkeypox prevention and control policies in G20 nations based on the WHO-DG recommendations. Medline (through PubMed), Scopus, and ProQuest Health and Medical Complete were searched to understand G20 preventative, diagnostic, and therapeutic policies. We also performed an extensive gray literature search through the Ministry of Health websites and newspaper through Google.  The documents/ studies that had an information on prevention, control and management guidelines/policies and published through journal, news articles and health ministry websites of G20 nations on monkeypox were included. We excluded the editorials, opinion, and perspective papers and studies published prior to May 6, 2022. Results: We obtained 671 articles with 10 articles included in the review. Additionally, we identified 55 documents from the gray literature. We included national guidelines of the 18 countries on the control, prevention, and management of monkeypox. National guidelines were compared with the WHO guidelines in terms of implementing coordinated response, engaging and protecting communities, surveillance and public health measures and international travel, clinical management and infection, prevention and control (IPC) measures and medical countermeasures research. Depending on the availability of resources, some recommendations are followed by nations while others are not. Conclusions: Coordinated response among states is key to contain the transmission of monkeypox. To bring a coordinated response, G20 nations are following temporary recommendations that are context specific to their nation.