Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27535900›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2016

Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research.

Alexander C Tsai, Brandon A Kohrt, Lynn T Matthews, Theresa S Betancourt, Jooyoung K Lee, Andrew V Papachristos, Sheri D Weiser, Shari L Dworkin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. With qualitative research, the risks of data sharing can outweigh the rewards.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Exchanging words: Engaging the challenges of sharing qualitative research data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alexander C TsaiChester M. Pierce, MD Division of Global Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA; Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Cambridge, USA; Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda. Electronic address: actsai@partners.org.
Brandon A KohrtDuke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, USA.
Lynn T MatthewsChester M. Pierce, MD Division of Global Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.
Theresa S BetancourtHarvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Cambridge, USA; Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Jooyoung K LeeDepartment of Sociology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Andrew V PapachristosDepartment of Sociology, Yale University, New Haven, USA.
Sheri D WeiserDepartment of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, USA.
Shari L DworkinDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.

Funding

Microenterprise to empower and improve health of HIV+ women in UgandaK23MH096620 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI TSAI, ALEXANDER C · 2012 to 2016
$922k
Reducing Barriers to Mental Health Task SharingK01MH104310 · NIMH · GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI KOHRT, BRANDON ALAN · 2014 to 2018
$908k
Periconception HIV risk reduction for HIV-discordant couples in UgandaK23MH095655 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI MATTHEWS, LYNN T · 2011 to 2015
$854k
NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH104310NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH095655NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH096620
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The movement for research transparency has gained irresistible momentum over the past decade. Although qualitative research is rarely published in the high-impact journals that have adopted, or are most likely to adopt, data sharing policies, qualitative researchers who publish work in these and similar venues will likely encounter questions about data sharing within the next few years. The fundamental ways in which qualitative and quantitative data differ should be considered when assessing the extent to which qualitative and mixed methods researchers should be expected to adhere to data sharing policies developed with quantitative studies in mind. We outline several of the most critical concerns below, while also suggesting possible modifications that may help to reduce the probability of unintended adverse consequences and to ensure that the sharing of qualitative data is consistent with ethical standards in research.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationConfidentialityHumansQualitative ResearchReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignConfidentialityData sharingEthnographyMixed methodsQualitative researchReproducibilityTransparency

Identifiers

PMID27535900
PMCPMC5491836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.