ArticlePloS one2025
Development of Data Transfer Ethics Framework (daTEF): A participatory approach to delivering evidence-based guidelines for healthcare data transfer.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundIn Nepal, insufficient healthcare infrastructure and limited funding contribute to unmet public healthcare needs and reduced quality of care. While foreign health researchers have stepped in to support local research initiatives, their involvement has sparked ethical concerns regarding the sharing and ownership of data. This study aims to develop a locally governed framework for ethical healthcare data exchange, establish an evidence base to understand local challenges in data transfer, and to identify potential solutions for data sharing with international research teams.
methodThis cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in Kathmandu, Nepal, using 11 multiple-choice and 12 open-ended questionnaire models. We conducted a pre-structured questionnaire survey to best identify local ethics issues related to international data transfer and proposed solutions for these challenges. The key representatives identified from the non-governmental and not-for-profit research institute (n = 14) and the life sciences society (n = 7) were invited to one-to-one blind interviews, and their recorded transcripts were coded using the QDA Miner Lite software (version 3.0) for analysis.
resultThe ratio of female to male participants was 2:3, while the ratio of junior-level staff to senior staff (≥3 years of experience in the sector) was 1:9. Approximately 42.86% of participants shared both raw and analytical data, while <5% shared no data with collaborators. Concerning knowledge, attitudes, and practices, most (38.46%) preferred open-access storage, while approximately 23.1% had limited knowledge, and 15.38% opted for confidentiality. Additionally, < 10% were in the learning process and sought training in data transfer procedures. Within this group of key representatives, participants faced main challenges in the data transfer process from four key categories: (i) the lack of standardized guidelines from government or institutes for data transfer, (ii) inadequate awareness and training in data sharing, (iii) problems related to data sharing, and (iv) problems related to biological sample transfer.
conclusionIn summary, this study emphasizes the importance of a standardized data-sharing platform, focusing on protecting intellectual property rights and establishing a centralized data repository in Nepal. It also recommends educational reforms, legal measures, well-defined agreements, and dedicated oversight to ensure data integrity and security, while streamlining sample transfer processes to enhance transparency and scientific progress in Nepal's research landscape.
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.