Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34007888›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of population data science2020

Linking pre- and post-adoption records for research in anonymised form in a data safe haven: legal implications and support for a social licence.

Kerina Jones, Sharon Heys, Rachel Thompson, David Ford, Lucy Griffiths, Rhodri Johnson, Alex Lee, Karen Broadhurst

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Kerina JonesPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Sharon HeysPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Rachel ThompsonPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
David FordPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Lucy GriffithsPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Rhodri JohnsonPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Alex LeePopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Karen BroadhurstCentre for Child & Family Justice Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YW, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe long-term health and wellbeing of adoptees is under-researched. One reason for this has been limited data accessibility regarding the adoption process, and another is a practice common in some UK jurisdictions of changing the National Health Service (NHS) number (or equivalent) at adoption, as part of creating the new identity. The SAIL Databank holds data on child and family court cases from Cafcass Cymru, together with children's social care data, and can link these with routine health and administrative data in anonymised form. However, because the linkage key at SAIL is based on an encryption of the NHS number, working with pre- and post-adoption records for longitudinal research remains a major challenge. We set out to explore the legal implications of, and social support for, linking these records for use in anonymised form for longitudinal research.

methodsWe reviewed the main legislation and regulations governing the use of data about adoptees in England and Wales. We gauged support for a social licence in Wales by carrying out interviews with individuals who had been involved in the adoptions process, and by engaging with general public groups for their views. We drew out the main emerging themes and, in combination with the review, propose a way forward.

resultsThe legal review indicated that there are provisions in the Family Procedure Rules (England and Wales) and the General Data Protection Regulation that can be relied upon for the lawful processing of adoption data into anonymised form for research. The main points of concern about linking pre- and post-adoption records were privacy, data security, the need to limit the number of organisations involved in data sharing, and re-identification risk. The over-riding message was favourable with longitudinal research seen as strongly beneficial.

conclusionThis study has indicated that in Wales, there is no legal impediment, nor major objection from individuals involved in the adoptions process, or members of the general public, for the use of adoption data in anonymised form in a data safe haven. This includes the linkage of pre- and post-adoption records to enable novel longitudinal research to take place. The provisos were that robust safeguards must be in place, and that the research should aim to benefit adoptees and to improve policy and practice. We conclude that it is reasonable to proceed with caution to develop practical ways to link pre- and post-adoption records in a data safe haven.

Indexed as

adoptions dataKeywords public engagementlegal issues

Identifiers

PMID34007888
PMCPMC8110886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.