Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39405526›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Building and Sustaining Public Trust in Health Data Sharing for Musculoskeletal Research: Semistructured Interview and Focus Group Study.

Zainab K Yusuf, William G Dixon, Charlotte Sharp, Louise Cook, Søren Holm, Caroline Sanders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Zainab K YusufCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7859-5102
William G DixonCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5881-4857
Charlotte SharpCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4051-2281
Louise CookCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4170-5018
Søren HolmCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7200-5607
Caroline SandersNIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0539-928X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough many people are supportive of their deidentified health care data being used for research, concerns about privacy, safety, and security of health care data remain. There is low awareness about how data are used for research and related governance. Transparency about how health data are used for research is crucial for building public trust. One proposed solution is to ensure that affected communities are notified, particularly marginalized communities where there has previously been a lack of engagement and mistrust.

objectiveThis study aims to explore patient and public perspectives on the use of deidentified data from electronic health records for musculoskeletal research and to explore ways to build and sustain public trust in health data sharing for a research program (known as "the Data Jigsaw") piloting new ways of using and analyzing electronic health data. Views and perspectives about how best to engage with local communities informed the development of a public notification campaign about the research.

methodsQualitative methods data were generated from 20 semistructured interviews and 8 focus groups, comprising 48 participants in total with musculoskeletal conditions or symptoms, including 3 carers. A presentation about the use of health data for research and examples from the specific research projects within the program were used to trigger discussion. We worked in partnership with a patient and public involvement group throughout the research and cofacilitated wider community engagement.

resultsRespondents were supportive of their health care data being shared for research purposes, but there was low awareness about how electronic health records are used for research. Security and governance concerns about data sharing were noted, including collaborations with external companies and accessing social care records. Project examples from the Data Jigsaw program were viewed positively after respondents knew more about how their data were being used to improve patient care. A range of different methods to build and sustain trust were deemed necessary by participants. Information was requested about: data management; individuals with access to the data (including any collaboration with external companies); the National Health Service's national data opt-out; and research outcomes. It was considered important to enable in-person dialogue with affected communities in addition to other forms of information.

conclusionsThe findings have emphasized the need for transparency and awareness about health data sharing for research, and the value of tailoring this to reflect current and local research where residents might feel more invested in the focus of research and the use of local records. Thus, the provision for targeted information within affected communities with accessible messages and community-based dialogue could help to build and sustain public trust. These findings can also be extrapolated to other conditions beyond musculoskeletal conditions, making the findings relevant to a much wider community.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsFocus GroupsInformation DisseminationMusculoskeletal DiseasesTrustAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Ageddata sharingmarginalized communitiesmusculoskeletalpublic trustunderserved communities

Identifiers

PMID39405526
PMCPMC11522652

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.