ArticleHuman genomics2018
Better governance, better access: practising responsible data sharing in the METADAC governance infrastructure.
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.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The ethical and legal landscape of brain data governance.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- A scientometric review of genome-wide association studies.Communications biology · 2019Pooled it
- Characteristics of cohort data management systems (CDMS): a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Home-based self-collection of biological samples, including vaginal swabs: a mixed methods study for Britain's fourth National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-4).Sexually transmitted infections · 2025Article
- Public Involvement and Engagement in Big Data Research: Scoping Review.Journal of participatory medicine · 2024Article
- A qualitative interview study to determine barriers and facilitators of implementing automated decision support tools for genomic data access.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence and medical research databases: ethical review by data access committees.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Article
- Setting up a Governance Framework for Secondary Use of Routine Health Data in Nursing Homes: Development Study Using Qualitative Interviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Public governance of medical artificial intelligence research in the UK: an integrated multi-scale model.Research involvement and engagement · 2022Review
- What can data trusts for health research learn from participatory governance in biobanks?Journal of medical ethics · 2022Article
- The multidimensional legal nature of personal genomic sequence data: A South African perspective.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Public Views About Involvement in Decision-Making on Health Data Sharing, Access, Use and Reuse: The Importance of Trust in Science and Other Institutions.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Citizen engagement initiatives in precision health in the European Union member states: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Why Is the Electronic Health Record So Challenging for Research and Clinical Care?Methods of information in medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Engaged genomic science produces better and fairer outcomes: an engagement framework for engaging and involving participants, patients and publics in genomics research and healthcare implementation.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- An agenda-setting paper on data sharing platforms: euCanSHare workshop.Open research Europe · 2021Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Recognizing, reporting and reducing the data curation debt of cohort studies.International journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
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
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.