Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37005651›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genomics2023

Context matters in genomic data sharing: a qualitative investigation into responses from the Australian public.

Vanessa Warren, Christine Critchley, Rebekah McWhirter, Jarrod Walshe, Dianne Nicol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Australian Attitudes Towards Waivers of Consent Within the Context of Genomic Data Sharing.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024
    Article
  6. 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.

Vanessa WarrenSchool of Law, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, TAS, Australia. vanessa.warren@utas.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7445-2569
Christine CritchleySchool of Law, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, TAS, Australia.
Rebekah McWhirterSchool of Law, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, TAS, Australia.
Jarrod WalsheSchool of Health Science, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia.
Dianne NicolSchool of Law, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, TAS, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding public attitudes to genomic data sharing is widely seen as key in shaping effective governance. However, empirical research in this area often fails to capture the contextual nuances of diverse sharing practices and regulatory concerns encountered in real-world genomic data sharing. This study aimed to investigate factors affecting public attitudes to data sharing through responses to diverse genomic data sharing scenarios.

methodsA set of seven empirically validated genomic data sharing scenarios reflecting a range of current practices in Australia was used in an open-ended survey of a diverse sample of the Australian public (n = 243). Qualitative responses were obtained for each of the scenarios. Respondents were each allocated one scenario and asked five questions on: whether (and why/not) they would share data; what sharing would depend on; benefits and risks of sharing; risks they were willing to accept if sharing was certain to result in benefits; and what could increase their comfort about sharing and any potential risk. A thematic analysis was used to examine responses, coded and validated by two blinded coders.

resultsParticipants indicated an overall high willingness to share genomic information, although this willingness varied considerably between different scenarios. A strong perception of benefits was reported as the foremost explanation for willingness to share across all scenarios. The high degree of convergence in the perception of benefits and the types of benefits identified by participants across all the scenarios suggests that the differentiation in intention to share may lie in perceptions of risk, which showed distinct patterns within and between the different scenarios. Some concerns were shared strongly across all scenarios, particularly benefit sharing, future use, and privacy.

conclusionsQualitative responses provide insight into popular assumptions regarding existing protections, conceptions of privacy, and which trade-offs are generally acceptable. Our results indicate that public attitudes and concerns are heterogeneous and influenced by the context in which sharing takes place. The convergence of key themes such as benefits and future uses point to core concerns that must be centred in regulatory responses to genomic data sharing.

Indexed as

GenomicsInformation DisseminationAustraliaHumansPrivacyPublic OpinionBenefit sharingCommercializationFuture useGenetic dataGenomic data sharingGovernancePublic attitudes

Identifiers

PMID37005651
PMCPMC10068139

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.