Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30664452›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Protecting User Privacy and Rights in Academic Data-Sharing Partnerships: Principles From a Pilot Program at Crisis Text Line.

Anthony R Pisani, Nitya Kanuri, Bob Filbin, Carlos Gallo, Madelyn Gould, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, Robert Levine, John E Marcotte, Brian Pascal, David Rousseau and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Special Section on Ethics in Health Informatics.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Anthony R PisaniDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4698-8432
Nitya KanuriYale School of Management, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8708-4352
Bob FilbinCrisis Text Line, New York, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1330-245X
Carlos GalloDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3270-8786
Madelyn GouldDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2881-9152
Lisa Soleymani LehmannNational Center for Ethics in Health Care, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8779-1244
Robert LevineDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9896-876X
John E MarcotteInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6199-4454
Brian PascalCenter for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9171-5084
David RousseauHenry J Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9468-8886
Shairi TurnerCrisis Text Line, New York, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3559-5940
Shirley YenDepartment of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7194-1380
Megan L RanneyEmergency Digital Health Innovation Program, Department of Emergency Medicine, Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8450-9642

Funding

INNOVATIVE IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH METHODS COREP30DA027828 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI BROWN, C. HENDRICKS · 2011 to 2020
$11.4M
Neurobehavioral and Functional Consequences of HIV in African AmericansK23MH095661 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI THAMES, APRIL D · 2012 to 2016
$1.0M
Mobile Phone Intervention to Prevent Youth Suicide in Rural CommunitiesK23MH101449 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI PISANI, ANTHONY R · 2013 to 2016
$704k
Dopamine levels in postmortem human nucleus accumbens in schizophreniaF31MH098566 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI MCCOLLUM, LESLEY A · 2013 to 2014
$55k
NIDA NIH HHS P30 DA027828NIMH NIH HHS F31 MH098566NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH095661NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH101449
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data sharing between technology companies and academic health researchers has multiple health care, scientific, social, and business benefits. Many companies remain wary about such sharing because of unaddressed concerns about ethics, data security, logistics, and public relations. Without guidance on these issues, few companies are willing to take on the potential work and risks involved in noncommercial data sharing, and the scientific and societal potential of their data goes unrealized. In this paper, we describe the 18-month long pilot of a data-sharing program led by Crisis Text Line (CTL), a not-for-profit technology company that provides a free 24/7 text line for people in crisis. The primary goal of the data-sharing pilot was to design, develop, and implement a rigorous framework of principles and protocols for the safe and ethical sharing of user data. CTL used a stakeholder-based policy process to develop a feasible and ethical data-sharing program. The process comprised forming a data ethics committee; identifying policy challenges and solutions; announcing the program and generating interest; and revising the policy and launching the program. Once the pilot was complete, CTL examined how well the program ran and compared it with other potential program models before putting in place the program that was most suitable for its organizational needs. By drawing on CTL's experiences, we have created a 3-step set of guidelines for other organizations that wish to develop their own data-sharing program with academic researchers. The guidelines explain how to (1) determine the value and suitability of the data and organization for creating a data-sharing program; (2) decide on an appropriate data sharing and collaboration model; and (3) develop protocols and technical solutions for safe and ethical data sharing and the best organizational structure for implementing the program. An internal evaluation determined that the pilot satisfied CTL's goals of sharing scientific data and protecting client confidentiality. The policy development process also yielded key principles and protocols regarding the ethical challenges involved in data sharing that can be applied by other organizations. Finally, CTL's internal review of the pilot program developed a number of alternative models for sharing data that will suit a range of organizations with different priorities and capabilities. In implementing and studying this pilot program, CTL aimed both to optimize its own future data-sharing programs and to inform similar decisions made by others. Open data programs are both important and feasible to establish. With careful planning and appropriate resources, data sharing between big data companies and academic researchers can advance their shared mission to benefit society and improve lives.

Indexed as

Computer SecurityCrisis InterventionData CollectionHumansInformation DisseminationPilot ProjectsPrivacycooperative behaviorcrisis interventiondata sharingethics, businessindustryinformation disseminationprivacytechnologytext messaging

Identifiers

PMID30664452
PMCPMC6354196

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.