ArticleInternational journal of population data science2020
Guidance for researchers wanting to link NHS data using non-consent approaches: a thematic analysis of feedback from the Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group.
Article in International journal of population data science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commercial or industrial use of mental health data for research: primer and best-practice guidelines from the DATAMIND patient/public Lived Experience Advisory Group.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Intellectual disability in the children of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC).Wellcome open research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe use of linked data and non-consent methodologies is a rapidly growing area of health research due to the increasing detail, availability and scope of routinely collected electronic health records data. However, gaining the necessary legal and governance approvals to undertake data linkage is a complex process in England.
objectivesWe reflect on our own experience of establishing lawful basis for data linkage through Section 251 approval, with the intention to build a knowledgebase of practical advice for future applicants.
methodsThematic analysis was conducted on a corpus of Section 251 feedback reports from the NHS Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group.
resultsFour themes emerged from the feedback. These were: (a) Patient and Public Involvement, (b) Establishing Rationale, (c) Data maintenance and contingency, and the need to gain (d) Further Permissions from external authorities prior to full approval.
conclusionsSecuring Section 251 approval poses ethical, practical and governance challenges. However, through a comprehensive, planned approach Section 251 approval is possible, enabling researchers to unlock the potential of linked data for the purposes of health research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.