Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35886636›Full record

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.

Mariana Amorim, Susana Silva, Helena Machado, Elisa Leão Teles, Maria João Baptista, Tiago Maia, Ngozi Nwebonyi, Cláudia de Freitas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. FAIR Omics Data Management: Overview, Challenges, and Best Practices.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Twelve quick tips for deploying a Beacon.PLoS computational biology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Mariana AmorimLaboratório para a Investigação Integrativa e Translacional em Saúde Populacional (ITR), 4050-600 Porto, Portugal.
Susana SilvaCentro em Rede de Investigação em Antropologia, Universidade do Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1335-8648
Helena MachadoInstituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade do Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal.
Elisa Leão TelesCentro de Referência de Doenças Hereditárias do Metabolismo, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal.
Maria João BaptistaCentro de Referência de Cardiopatias Congénitas, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal.
Tiago MaiaLaboratório para a Investigação Integrativa e Translacional em Saúde Populacional (ITR), 4050-600 Porto, Portugal.
Ngozi NwebonyiLaboratório para a Investigação Integrativa e Translacional em Saúde Populacional (ITR), 4050-600 Porto, Portugal.
Cláudia de FreitasLaboratório para a Investigação Integrativa e Translacional em Saúde Populacional (ITR), 4050-600 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1828-8642

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CaregiversRare DiseasesCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareGenomicsHumansRisk Assessmentdata governancedata sharinggenomics researchpublic viewsrare diseasesrisks

Identifiers

PMID35886636
PMCPMC9319916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.