Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31317072›Full record

ArticleLearning health systems2019

Our data, our society, our health: A vision for inclusive and transparent health data science in the United Kingdom and beyond.

Elizabeth Ford, Andy Boyd, Juliana K F Bowles, Alys Havard, Robert W Aldridge, Vasa Curcin, Michelle Greiver, Katie Harron, Vittal Katikireddi, Sarah E Rodgers and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning health systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Attitudes towards data access and sharing health data for research: a case study of Australian data custodian perspectives.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Beyond the dataset: integrating public voices in data science.Research involvement and engagement · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Challenges and opportunities for using population health data to investigate cancer survivors' quality of life in Australia.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

11 authors.

Elizabeth FordDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Brighton and Sussex Medical School Brighton UK.
Andy BoydALSPAC, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School University of Bristol Bristol UK.
Juliana K F BowlesSchool of Computer Science University of St Andrews St Andrews UK.
Alys HavardCentre for Big Data Research in Health University of New South Wales Sydney Australia.
Robert W AldridgeInstitute of Health Informatics University College London London UK.
Vasa CurcinSchool of Population and Environmental Health Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine King's College London UK.
Michelle GreiverDepartment of Family and Community Medicine University of Toronto, North York General Hospital Toronto Canada.
Katie HarronGreat Ormond Street Institute of Child Health UCL London UK.
Vittal KatikireddiMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit University of Glasgow Glasgow UK.
Sarah E RodgersHealth Data Research UK Swansea University Swansea UK.
Matthew SperrinSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health University of Manchester Manchester UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SCAF/15/02Chief Scientist Office SPHSU13Chief Scientist Office SPHSU15Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/13Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15Wellcome Trust 103975
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The last 6 years have seen sustained investment in health data science in the United Kingdom and beyond, which should result in a data science community that is inclusive of all stakeholders, working together to use data to benefit society through the improvement of public health and well-being. However, opportunities made possible through the innovative use of data are still not being fully realised, resulting in research inefficiencies and avoidable health harms. In this paper, we identify the most important barriers to achieving higher productivity in health data science. We then draw on previous research, domain expertise, and theory to outline how to go about overcoming these barriers, applying our core values of inclusivity and transparency. We believe a step change can be achieved through meaningful stakeholder involvement at every stage of research planning, design, and execution and team-based data science, as well as harnessing novel and secure data technologies. Applying these values to health data science will safeguard a social licence for health data research and ensure transparent and secure data usage for public benefit.

Indexed as

citizen‐driven sciencedata flowshealth data sciencehealth systemsstakeholder involvementtransparency

Identifiers

PMID31317072
PMCPMC6628981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.