Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37194009›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023

A one-size-fits-all approach to data-sharing will not suffice in lifecourse research: a grounded theory study of data-sharing from the perspective of participants in a 50-year-old lifecourse study about health and development.

Jane Reeves, Gareth J Treharne, Mihi Ratima, Reremoana Theodore, Will Edwards, Richie Poulton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jane ReevesDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, Aotearoa, 9054, New Zealand.
Gareth J TreharneDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, Aotearoa, 9054, New Zealand. gareth.treharne@otago.ac.nz.
Mihi RatimaTe Pou Tiringa, New Plymouth, Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Reremoana TheodoreDunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, Aotearoa, 9054, New Zealand.
Will EdwardsTaumata Associates, New Plymouth, Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Richie PoultonDunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, Aotearoa, 9054, New Zealand.
University of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData-sharing is increasingly encouraged or required by funders and journals. Data-sharing is more complicated for lifecourse studies that rely upon ongoing participation, but little is known about perspectives on data-sharing among participants of such studies. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore perspectives on data-sharing of participants in a birth cohort study.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 members of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study when aged between 45 and 48 years. Interviews were led by the Director of the Dunedin Study and involved questions about different scenarios for data-sharing. The sample consisted of nine Dunedin Study members who are Māori (the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa/New Zealand) and 16 who are non-Māori.

resultsPrinciples of grounded theory were applied to develop a model of participant perspectives on data-sharing. The model consists of three factors that inform a core premise that a one-size-fits-all approach to data-sharing will not suffice in lifecourse research. Participants suggested that data-sharing decisions should depend on the cohort and might need to be declined if any one Dunedin Study member was opposed (factor 1). Participants also expressed a proven sense of trust in the researchers and raised concerns about loss of control once data have been shared (factor 2). Participants described a sense of balancing opportunities for public good against inappropriate uses of data, highlighting variability in perceived sensitivity of data, and thus a need to take this into account if sharing data (factor 3).

conclusionsCommunal considerations within cohorts, loss of control over shared data, and concerns about inappropriate uses of shared data need to be addressed through detailed informed consent before data-sharing occurs for lifecourse studies, particularly where this has not been established from the start of the study. Data-sharing may have implications for the retention of participants in these studies and thus may impact on the value of long-term sources of knowledge about health and development. Researchers, ethics committees, journal editors, research funders, and government policymakers need to consider participants' views when balancing the proposed benefits of data-sharing against the potential risks and concerns of participants in lifecourse research.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationInformed ConsentCohort StudiesGrounded TheoryHumansMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchAnonymityConfidentialityData-sharingData sovereigntyIndigenous peoplesLifecourseLongitudinal researchResearch consentResearch participant perspectives

Identifiers

PMID37194009
PMCPMC10186306
OpenAlexW4376872677

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.