Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31005936›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Participatory governance over research in an academic research network: the case of Diabetes Action Canada.

Donald J Willison, Joslyn Trowbridge, Michelle Greiver, Karim Keshavjee, Doug Mumford, Frank Sullivan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Donald J WillisonInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2848-3791
Joslyn TrowbridgeDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michelle GreiverFamily and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8957-0285
Karim KeshavjeeInfoclin, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1317-7035
Doug MumfordPatent Representative, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Frank SullivanFamily and Community Medicine, North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6623-4964
University of Toronto · CA3M (United States) · USCanada Health Infoway · CAUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

CIHR SCA 145101
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital data generated in the course of clinical care are increasingly being leveraged for a wide range of secondary purposes. Researchers need to develop governance policies that can assure the public that their information is being used responsibly. Our aim was to develop a generalisable model for governance of research emanating from health data repositories that will invoke the trust of the patients and the healthcare professionals whose data are being accessed for health research. We developed our governance principles and processes through literature review and iterative consultation with key actors in the research network including: a data governance working group, the lead investigators and patient advisors. We then recruited persons to participate in the governing and advisory bodies. Our governance process is informed by eight principles: (1) transparency; (2) accountability; (3) follow rule of law; (4) integrity; (5) participation and inclusiveness; (6) impartiality and independence; (7) effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness and (8) reflexivity and continuous quality improvement. We describe the rationale for these principles, as well as their connections to the subsequent policies and procedures we developed. We then describe the function of the Research Governing Committee, the majority of whom are either persons living with diabetes or physicians whose data are being used, and the patient and data provider advisory groups with whom they consult and communicate. In conclusion, we have developed a values-based information governance framework and process for Diabetes Action Canada that adds value over-and-above existing scientific and ethics review processes by adding a strong patient perspective and contextual integrity. This model is adaptable to other secure data repositories.

Indexed as

Health Records, PersonalBiomedical ResearchCanadaConfidentialityData CollectionDatasets as TopicDiabetes MellitusEthics Committees, ResearchHumansinformation governanceparticipatory governanceresearch governance

Identifiers

PMID31005936
PMCPMC6500288
OpenAlexW2935702603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.