ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2018
A comparison of views regarding the use of de-identified data.
Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A one-size-fits-all approach to data-sharing will not suffice in lifecourse research: a grounded theory study of data-sharing from the perspective of participants in a 50-year-old lifecourse study about health and development.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Research Participant Views regarding Qualitative Data Sharing.Ethics & human research · 2020Article
- Introduction to the Special Issue on Clinical and Public Health Genomics: Opportunities for translational behavioral medicine research, practice, and policy.Translational behavioral medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Data sharing of large genomic databases and biorepositories provides researchers adequately powered samples to advance the goals of precision medicine. Data sharing may also introduce, however, participant privacy concerns including possible reidentification. This study compares views of research participants, genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals regarding concerns about the use of de-identified data. An online survey was completed by cancer patients, their relatives, and controls from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry (n = 450) querying views about potential harms with the use of de-identified data. This was compared to our previous online national survey of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208). Researchers were less likely to feel that participants would be personally identified or harmed from a study involving de-identified data or feel that a federal agency might compel researchers to disclose information about research participants. Compared to genetic researchers, IRB professionals and participants were significantly more likely to express that personal identification or harm was likely or that researchers might be forced to disclose information by a federal agency. An understanding of the differences in views regarding possible harm from the use of de-identified data between these three important stakeholder groups is necessary to move forward with genomic 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.