ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2018
Examining Data Repository Guidelines for Qualitative Data Sharing.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Qualitative Methods for Clinical and Health Services Research in Internal Medicine: Guidance and Key Considerations.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Guideline
- Use of an AI-Based Tool (Human Experiences and Reflections Data Connector) to Improve Discovery and Reuse of Archived Qualitative Data: Protocol for an Algorithm Development and Validation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Exchanging words: Engaging the challenges of sharing qualitative research data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Potentially Identifying Variables Reported in 100 Qualitative Health Research Articles: Implications for Data Sharing and Secondary Analysis.Forum, qualitative social research · 2023Article
- Qualitative data sharing practices in clinical trials in the UK and Ireland: towards the production of good practice guidance.HRB open research · 2023Article
- Are we ready to share qualitative research data? Knowledge and preparedness among qualitative researchers, IRB Members, and data repository curators.IASSIST quarterly · 2020Article
- Responsible Sharing of Qualitative Research Data: Insights From a Pioneering Project in the United States.International journal of qualitative methodsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Qualitative data provide rich information on research questions in diverse fields. Recent calls for increased transparency and openness in research emphasize data sharing. However, qualitative data sharing has yet to become the norm internationally and is particularly uncommon in the United States. Guidance for archiving and secondary use of qualitative data is required for progress in this regard. In this study, we review the benefits and concerns associated with qualitative data sharing and then describe the results of a content analysis of guidelines from international repositories that archive qualitative data. A minority of repositories provide qualitative data sharing guidelines. Of the guidelines available, there is substantial variation in whether specific topics are addressed. Some topics, such as removing direct identifiers, are consistently addressed, while others, such as providing an anonymization log, are not. We discuss the implications of our study for education, best practices, and future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.