Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31436163›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Public Views on Models for Accessing Genomic and Health Data for Research: Mixed Methods Study.

Kerina H Jones, Helen Daniels, Emma Squires, David V Ford

Abstract 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. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Public engagement with genomics.Wellcome open research · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

4 authors.

Kerina H JonesPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8164-3718
Helen DanielsPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8899-0333
Emma SquiresPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0693-5846
David V FordPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6551-721X

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_16035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe literature abounds with increasing numbers of research studies using genomic data in combination with health data (eg, health records and phenotypic and lifestyle data), with great potential for large-scale research and precision medicine. However, concerns have been raised about social acceptability and risks posed for individuals and their kin. Although there has been public engagement on various aspects of this topic, there is a lack of information about public views on data access models.

objectiveThis study aimed to address the lack of information on the social acceptability of access models for reusing genomic data collected for research in conjunction with health data. Models considered were open web-based access, released externally to researchers, and access within a data safe haven.

methodsViews were ascertained using a series of 8 public workshops (N=116). The workshops included an explanation of benefits and risks in using genomic data with health data, a facilitated discussion, and an exit questionnaire. The resulting quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and the qualitative data were analyzed for emerging themes.

resultsRespondents placed a high value on the reuse of genomic data but raised concerns including data misuse, information governance, and discrimination. They showed a preference for giving consent and use of data within a safe haven over external release or open access. Perceived risks with open access included data being used by unscrupulous parties, with external release included data security, and with safe havens included the need for robust safeguards.

conclusionsThis is the first known study exploring public views of access models for reusing anonymized genomic and health data in research. It indicated that people are generally amenable but prefer data safe havens because of perceived sensitivities. We recommend that public views be incorporated into guidance on models for the reuse of genomic and health data.

Indexed as

Public OpinionData CollectionFemaleGenomicsHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMaleResearch Designdata linkagedata storagegenetic databaseshuman genomepublic opinion

Identifiers

PMID31436163
PMCPMC6727690

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.