Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39005631›Full record

ArticleOpen research Europe2023

Parent attitudes towards data sharing in developmental science.

Jannath Begum Ali, Rebecca Holman, Amy L Goodwin, Siofra Heraty, Emily J H Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open research Europe, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Jannath Begum Ali *Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck University of London, London, England, UK.
Rebecca Holman *Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck University of London, London, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4894-3510
Amy L GoodwinDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, King's College London, London, England, UK.
Siofra HeratyDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck University of London, London, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8023-367X
Emily J H JonesDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck University of London, London, England, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Data sharing in developmental science is increasingly encouraged, supported by funder and publisher mandates for open data access. Data sharing can accelerate discovery, link researchers with high quality analytic expertise to researchers with large datasets and democratise the research landscape to enable researchers with limited funding to access large sample sizes. However, there are also significant privacy and security concerns, in addition to conceptual and ethical considerations. These are particularly acute for developmental science, where child participants cannot consent themselves. As we move forward into a new era of data openness, it is essential that we adequately represent the views of stakeholder communities in designing data sharing efforts. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive survey of the opinions of 195 parents on data sharing in developmental science. Survey themes included how widely parents are willing to share their child's data, which type of organisations they would share the data with and the type of consent they would be comfortable providing. Results: Results showed that parents were generally supportive of curated, but not open, data sharing. In addition to individual privacy and security concerns, more altruistic considerations around the purpose of research were important. Parents overwhelmingly supported nuanced consenting models in which preferences for particular types of data sharing could be changed over time. This model is different to that implemented in the vast majority of developmental science research and is contrary to many funder or publisher mandates. Conclusions: The field should look to create shared repositories that implement features such as dynamic consent and mechanisms for curated sharing that allow consideration of the scientific questions addressed. Better communication and outreach are required to build trust in data sharing, and advanced analytic methods will be required to understand the impact of selective sharing on reproducibility and representativeness of research datasets.

Indexed as

Autism spectrum disorderconsentdata sharingdevelopmental scienceneurodevelopmental conditionsOpen sciencetypical development

Identifiers

PMID39005631
PMCPMC11245672

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.