Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36633724›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2023

Towards trust-based governance of health data research.

Marieke A R Bak, M Corrette Ploem, Hanno L Tan, M T Blom, Dick L Willems

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Marieke A R BakDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC (Location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 15, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. marieke.bak@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0655-0743
M Corrette PloemDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC (Location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 15, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hanno L TanDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC (Location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M T BlomDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC (Location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dick L WillemsDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC (Location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 15, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

horizon 2020 framework programme 733381
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Developments in medical big data analytics may bring societal benefits but are also challenging privacy and other ethical values. At the same time, an overly restrictive data protection regime can form a serious threat to valuable observational studies. Discussions about whether data privacy or data solidarity should be the foundational value of research policies, have remained unresolved. We add to this debate with an empirically informed ethical analysis. First, experiences with the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) within a European research consortium demonstrate a gap between the aims of the regulation and its effects in practice. Namely, strictly formalised data protection requirements may cause routinisation among researchers instead of substantive ethical reflection, and may crowd out trust between actors in the health data research ecosystem; while harmonisation across Europe and data sharing between countries is hampered by different interpretations of the law, which partly stem from different views about ethical values. Then, building on these observations, we use theory to argue that the concept of trust provides an escape from the privacy-solidarity debate. Lastly, the paper details three aspects of trust that can help to create a responsible research environment and to mitigate the encountered challenges: trust as multi-agent concept; trust as a rational and democratic value; and trust as method for priority setting. Mutual cooperation in research-among researchers and with data subjects-is grounded in trust, which should be more explicitly recognised in the governance of health data research.

Indexed as

TrustEuropeHumansPrivacyBig dataData sharingESCAPE-NETGDPRGovernancePrivacyResearch ethicsSolidarityTrust

Identifiers

PMID36633724
PMCPMC9835739

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.