ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Building and Sustaining Public Trust in Health Data Sharing for Musculoskeletal Research: Semistructured Interview and Focus Group Study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attitudes of Longitudinal Study Participants and Members of the Public Towards Data Sharing for Secondary Research: A Survey Based Approach.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Willingness to Share Internet Use Data for Research on Early Disease Detection: Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.