ArticleInternational journal of population data science2024
Research data use in a digital society: a deliberative public engagement.
Article in International journal of population data science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Research data use in a digital society: a deliberative public engagement.International journal of population data science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sources of public and private data and ways to link them continue to evolve. This offers new opportunities for research, and new reasons for data-holding organisations to form partnerships. While research using these data can be beneficial, there is also a potential for negative consequences for some individuals or groups, including unintended or unanticipated effects. It is important to consult the public on how we might achieve both opportunities to link different types of data for research purposes, and protections against the misuse of data and the possibility of negative consequences. Methods: Combining data sources for research was the topic of four days of deliberation held in British Columbia, Canada in late 2019. Public deliberation events bring diverse groups of people together to give direct input to policy makers, through carefully structured in-depth discussion on issues that are controversial and/or a source of public concern. Participants discussed whether data from electronic medical records should be used for research purposes, whether it is acceptable to combine data from public and private sources, who should authorise its use in research, and how a public advisory group on data use might be structured. Results: Over four days, 29 residents of BC developed 17 deliberative conclusions that can be grouped into four broad topic areas: balancing benefit and potential harms when linking data; the protections that are expected to govern use of data; the type of authorisation required; and how the public should be involved in an ongoing way. Overall, the public is very supportive of research as long as oversight and controls are in place, including ongoing input from members of the public. Conclusion: Deliberative conclusions from this event provide essential public input on the use of linked data for research, in particular when those data come from multiple sources. This is important information as policy-makers continue to develop legislation and practices around the use and linkage of both public and private sources of data.
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.