Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26297746›Full record

ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2015

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

Ketaki Hate, Sanna Meherally, Neena Shah More, Anuja Jayaraman, Susan Bull, Michael Parker, David Osrin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ketaki HateSociety for Nutrition, Education and Health Action, Mumbai, India.
Sanna MeherallySociety for Nutrition, Education and Health Action, Mumbai, India.
Neena Shah MoreSociety for Nutrition, Education and Health Action, Mumbai, India.
Anuja JayaramanSociety for Nutrition, Education and Health Action, Mumbai, India.
Susan BullUniversity of Oxford, UK.
Michael ParkerUniversity of Oxford, UK.
David OsrinUCL Institute for Global Health, London, UK d.osrin@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 091561Wellcome Trust 096527Wellcome Trust 100714
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

AttitudeBiomedical ResearchCooperative BehaviorPublic HealthResearch PersonnelResearch SubjectsAdultAuthorshipChildData CollectionDeveloping CountriesEthics CommitteesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansIndiadata sharingethicsIndiaMumbaipoverty areas

Identifiers

PMID26297746
PMCPMC4547203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.