Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33722870›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Public and patient involvement in health data governance (DATAGov): protocol of a people-centred, mixed-methods study on data use and sharing for rare diseases care and research.

Cláudia de Freitas, Mariana Amorim, Helena Machado, Elisa Leão Teles, Maria João Baptista, Alicia Renedo, Veerle Provoost, Susana Silva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Ethical Considerations for Clinical Data Sharing in Craniofacial Research: Recommendations From a Multidisciplinary Working Group.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Delivering Digital Health Solutions that Patients Need: A Call to Action.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2024
    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

8 authors.

Cláudia de FreitasEPIUnit - Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal claudia.defreitas@ispup.up.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1828-8642
Mariana AmorimEPIUnit - Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Helena MachadoCommunication and Society Research Centre (CECS), Institute of Social Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Elisa Leão TelesCentro de Referência de Doenças Hereditárias do Metabolismo do Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal.
Maria João BaptistaCentro de Referência de Cardiopatias Congénitas do Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal.
Alicia RenedoPublic Health Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Veerle ProvoostBioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Susana SilvaEPIUnit - Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInternational policy imperatives for the public and patient involvement in the governance of health data coexist with conflicting cross-border policies on data sharing. This can challenge the planning and implementation of participatory data governance in healthcare services locally. Engaging with local stakeholders and understanding how their needs, values and preferences for governing health data can be articulated with policies made at the supranational level is crucial. This paper describes a protocol for a project that aims to coproduce a people-centred model for involving patients and the public in decision-making processes about the use and sharing of health data for rare diseases care and research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multidisciplinary project draws on an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study. A hospital-based survey with patients, informal carers, health professionals and technical staff recruited at two reference centres for rare diseases in Portugal will be conducted first. The qualitative study will follow consisting of semi-structured interviews and scenario-based workshops with a subsample of the participant groups recruited at baseline. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Inductive and deductive approaches will be combined to analyse the qualitative interviews. Data from scenario-based workshops will be iteratively compared using the constant comparison method to identify cross-cutting themes and categories. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Ethics Committee for Health from the University Hospital Centre São João/Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto approved the study protocol (Ref. 99/19). Research findings will be disseminated at academic conferences and science promotion events, and through public meetings involving patient representatives, practitioners, policy-makers and students, a project website and peer-reviewed journal publications.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationRare DiseasesHealth PersonnelHumansPortugalQualitative ResearchResearch Designethics (see medical ethics)health policyinformation management

Identifiers

PMID33722870
PMCPMC7959217

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.