Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34847803›Full record

ArticleQualitative health research2022

Qualitative Data Sharing: Participant Understanding, Motivation, and Consent.

Alicia VandeVusse, Jennifer Mueller, Sebastian Karcher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Qualitative health research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Navigating data sharing in research.American journal of human genetics · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Exchanging words: Engaging the challenges of sharing qualitative research data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Alicia VandeVusse5916Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3606-2778
Jennifer Mueller5916Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5258-0236
Sebastian KarcherQualitative Data Repository, 2029Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.

Funding

Advancing Measurement and Analysis of Sensitive Behaviors in the United StatesR01HD084473 · NICHD · GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE · PI LINDBERG, LAURA D · 2016 to 2020
$2.1M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD084473
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Expectations to share data underlying studies are increasing, but research on how participants, particularly those in qualitative research, respond to requests for data sharing is limited. We studied research participants' willingness to, understanding of, and motivations for data sharing. As part of a larger qualitative study on abortion reporting, we conducted interviews with 64 cisgender women in two states in early 2020 and asked for consent to share de-identified data. At the end of interviews, we asked participants to reflect on their motivations for agreeing or declining to share their data. The vast majority of respondents consented to data sharing and reported that helping others was a primary motivation for agreeing to share their data. However, a substantial number of participants showed a limited understanding of the concept of "data sharing." Additional research is needed on how to improve participants' understanding of data sharing and thus ensure fully informed consent.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationMotivationFemaleHumansInformed ConsentQualitative Researchabortion < reproductionconfidentialityethicsmoral perspectivesprivacyqualitative

Identifiers

PMID34847803
PMCPMC8739617

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.