ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Benefits and Risks of Sharing Genomic Data for Research: Comparing the Views of Rare Disease Patients, Informal Carers and Healthcare Professionals.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond consent: community engagement, benefit sharing and reciprocity in kidney genomics research.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2026Article
- Exploring needs and priorities in digital health management for rare disease patients and their caregivers: A mixed-methods study.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- NoisyFlow: differentially private optimal transport using neural networks for secure biomedical data sharing across multiple institutions.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Individuals' preferences for future biological sample and genomic data sharing in the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Attitudes and practices of researchers on the sharing of genomic data: a qualitative study in Uganda.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- FAIR Omics Data Management: Overview, Challenges, and Best Practices.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Balancing protection of participants and other stakeholders with openness: African lessons from the MADIVA data sharing and access policy.Global health action · 2025Article
- Worldwide willingness to share health data high but privacy, consent and transparency paramount, a meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Stakeholders' perceptions of personal health data sharing: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Health data sharing attitudes towards primary and secondary use of data: a systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Twelve quick tips for deploying a Beacon.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Cross-border data sharing through the lens of research ethics committee members in sub-Saharan Africa.PloS one · 2024Article
- Patients' and Members of the Public's Wishes Regarding Transparency in the Context of Secondary Use of Health Data: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessing public and patients' expectations and concerns about genomic data sharing is essential to promote adequate data governance and engagement in rare diseases genomics research. This cross-sectional study compared the views of 159 rare disease patients, 478 informal carers and 63 healthcare professionals in Northern Portugal about the benefits and risks of sharing genomic data for research, and its associated factors. The three participant groups expressed significantly different views. The majority of patients (84.3%) and informal carers (87.4%) selected the discovery of a cure for untreatable diseases as the most important benefit. In contrast, most healthcare professionals revealed a preference for the development of new drugs and treatments (71.4%), which was the second most selected benefit by carers (48.3%), especially by the more educated (OR (95% CI): 1.58 (1.07-2.34)). Lack of security and control over information access and the extraction of information exceeding research objectives were the two most often selected risks by patients (72.6% and 50.3%, respectively) and carers (60.0% and 60.6%, respectively). Conversely, professionals were concerned with genomic data being used to discriminate citizens (68.3%), followed by the extraction of information exceeding research objectives (54.0%). The latter risk was more frequently expressed by more educated carers (OR (95% CI): 1.60 (1.06-2.41)) and less by those with blue-collar (OR (95% CI): 0.44 (0.25-0.77) and other occupations (OR (95% CI): 0.44 (0.26-0.74)). Developing communication strategies and consent approaches tailored to participants' expectations and needs can benefit the inclusiveness of genomics research that is key for patient-centred care.
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.