ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Exploring the implementation of a data trust committee: a qualitative evaluation of processes and practices.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. 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.
- Incompleteness of Electronic Health Records: An Impending Process Problem Within Healthcare.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere's a significant demand to link and analyse administrative and routine local hospital data for health research to improve treatments and understand disease and diagnosis. Involving patients and members of the public in how data are accessed for service improvement is crucial for developing an acceptable, ethical and information governance-compliant whole system data linkage. A key challenge is ensuring sustainable and genuine public engagement that fosters trust in data use. This study evaluates the early implementation of a Data Trust Committee (DTC) at a London hospital, assessing its impact on research efficiency and the experiences of key stakeholders, including patients, staff and researchers.
methodsA rapid qualitative evaluation was conducted using semi-structured to assess the implementation and perceived impact of the DTC. Purposive sampling targeted DTC members (n = 8), attendees (n = 3), and researchers (n = 2). Thematic analysis, supported by RREAL sheets, identified key themes in stakeholders' experiences and perceptions.
resultsFindings highlighted five key areas: (1) the programme theory, outlining the DTC's role in data governance and responsible data access; (2) varying stakeholder perceptions of the DTC's purpose and decision-making processes; (3) The DTC's impact on research oversight, data access and approval processes; (4) challenges related to role clarification and communication; (5) the perceived effectiveness of the DTC in enhancing data quality, research oversight and approval speed. While participants recognised the DTC's potential to enhance data quality and prioritising patient experiences, challenges related to the speed of applications, communication gaps, and technology barriers were identified.
conclusionThe DTC played a pivotal role in reshaping research regulatory processes, and how this may benefit patients. However, balancing ethical risks with patient benefits remains an ongoing challenge. Addressing role clarity, communication strategies, and stakeholder engagement is essential for optimising future DTC implementation. Future research should expand to evaluate DTC models across diverse healthcare settings to enhance data sharing frameworks.
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.