Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39620125›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of population data science2024

Research data use in a digital society: a deliberative public engagement.

Kimberlyn M McGrail, Jack Teng, Colene Bentley, Kieran C O'Doherty, Michael M Burgess

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Research data use in a digital society: a deliberative public engagement.International journal of population data science · 2024
    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.

Kimberlyn M McGrailCentre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jack TengSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Colene BentleyBC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kieran C O'DohertyDepartment of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Michael M BurgessSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Community ParticipationBritish ColumbiaElectronic Health RecordsHumansdata governancedata intensive sciencepublic deliberation

Identifiers

PMID39620125
PMCPMC11606539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.