Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29695297›Full record

ArticleHuman genomics2018

Better governance, better access: practising responsible data sharing in the METADAC governance infrastructure.

Madeleine J Murtagh, Mwenza T Blell, Olly W Butters, Lorraine Cowley, Edward S Dove, Alissa Goodman, Rebecca L Griggs, Alison Hall, Nina Hallowell, Meena Kumari and 16 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    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

26 authors.

Madeleine J MurtaghNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Madeleine.Murtagh@newcastle.ac.uk.
Mwenza T BlellUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Olly W ButtersNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Lorraine CowleyNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Edward S DoveUniversity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Alissa GoodmanUniversity College London Institute of Education, London, UK.
Rebecca L GriggsUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Alison HallPHG Foundation, Cambridge, UK.
Nina HallowellUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Meena KumariUniversity of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Massimo ManginoKing's College London, London, UK.
Barbara MaughanKing's College London, London, UK.
Melinda C MillsUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Joel T MinionNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Tom MurphyUniversity College London Institute of Education, London, UK.
Gillian PriorNatCen, Brentwood, London, UK.
Matthew SudermanUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Susan M RingUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nina T RogersUniversity College London, London, UK.
Stephanie J RobertsNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Catherine Van der StraetenImperial College London, London, UK.
Will VineyGoldsmiths, University of London, London, UK.
Deborah WiltshireUK Data Archive, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Andrew WongUniversity College London, London, UK.
Neil WalkerNIHR Bioresource, Cambridge, UK.
Paul R BurtonNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G9815508Medical Research Council Grant Number: MR/N01104X/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/5Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/2Medical Research Council MR/K006525/1Medical Research Council MR/K007017/1Medical Research Council MR/N01104X/1Medical Research Council MR/N01104X/2Medical Research Council MR/P023444/1Wellcome Trust 209829/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic and biosocial research data about individuals is rapidly proliferating, bringing the potential for novel opportunities for data integration and use. The scale, pace and novelty of these applications raise a number of urgent sociotechnical, ethical and legal questions, including optimal methods of data storage, management and access. Although the open science movement advocates unfettered access to research data, many of the UK's longitudinal cohort studies operate systems of managed data access, in which access is governed by legal and ethical agreements between stewards of research datasets and researchers wishing to make use of them. Amongst other things, these agreements aim to respect the reasonable expectations of the research participants who provided data and samples, as expressed in the consent process. Arguably, responsible data management and governance of data and sample use are foundational to the consent process in longitudinal studies and are an important source of trustworthiness in the eyes of those who contribute data to genomic and biosocial research.

methodsThis paper presents an ethnographic case study exploring the foundational principles of a governance infrastructure for Managing Ethico-social, Technical and Administrative issues in Data ACcess (METADAC), which are operationalised through a committee known as the METADAC Access Committee. METADAC governs access to phenotype, genotype and 'omic' data and samples from five UK longitudinal studies.

findingsUsing the example of METADAC, we argue that three key structural features are foundational for practising responsible data sharing: independence and transparency; interdisciplinarity; and participant-centric decision-making. We observe that the international research community is proactively working towards optimising the use of research data, integrating/linking these data with routine data generated by health and social care services and other administrative data services to improve the analysis, interpretation and utility of these data. The governance of these new complex data assemblages will require a range of expertise from across a number of domains and disciplines, including that of study participants. Human-mediated decision-making bodies will be central to ensuring achievable, reasoned and responsible decisions about the use of these data; the METADAC model described in this paper provides an example of how this could be realised.

Indexed as

Big DataBiomedical ResearchDatabases, GeneticGenomicsGenotypeHumansInformation DisseminationData accessData Access Committee (DAC)Data ethicsData governanceEthnographyGovernanceInterdisciplinarityParticipant involvementQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID29695297
PMCPMC5918902

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.