Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30157520›Full record

ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2018

Between Scylla and Charybdis: Charting the Wicked Problem of Reusing Health Data for Clinical Research Informatics.

Nathan C Lea, Jacqueline Nicholls, Natalie K Fitzpatrick

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024
    Review
  3. Ensuring patient and public involvement in the transition to AI-assisted mental health care: A systematic scoping review and agenda for design justice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Nathan C LeaInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, England.
Jacqueline NichollsInstitute for Women's Health, University College London, England.
Natalie K FitzpatrickInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRecognising dilemmas posed by the sharing and reuse of health data as a classic wicked problem and uncover some current key challenges to clinical research informatics.

methodsA modified thematic review process including identification of agreed critical research questions, appropriate query terms and search strategy, identification of relevant papers in accordance with inclusion criteria, and authors' co-review of full text papers.

resultsQueries returned 4,779 papers published between January 2014 and November 2017. A shortlist of 197 abstracts was analysed and 18 papers were finally selected for review. Thematic assessment of findings revealed four key challenges: (1) uncertain reliability of consent as a cornerstone of trust due to the limits to understanding and awareness of data sharing; (2) ethical challenges around equity and autonomy; (3) ambitious overly theoretical governance frameworks lacking practical validity; and (4) a clear desire for further public and individual engagement to achieve clearer and more nuanced knowledge dissemination around data sharing practice and governance frameworks.

conclusionsUnderstanding the wicked problem of reusing clinically acquired health data for research purposes is essential if clinical research is to benefit from informatics advances. A lack of understanding around the context of data acquisition and sharing undermines the foundations of patient-professional trust. Efforts to protect privacy, where tailoring to specific contexts is a key driver, should support the development of solutions which more adequately honour privacy needs, justify access, and protect equity and autonomy.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchConfidentialityInformation DisseminationHealth Records, PersonalHumansInformed Consent

Identifiers

PMID30157520
PMCPMC6115213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.