ArticleBMC primary care2025
Unlocking insights: general practice staff perspectives on sharing general practice data for research - a scoping review.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practice data holds significant potential for secondary use in research, offering insights into healthcare delivery, disease patterns, and informing policy development. However, the ethical, practical, and relational complexities of data sharing in general practice settings remain underexplored. This scoping review investigates the perspectives of general practice staff-including general practitioners, practice nurses, and practice managers-on sharing general practice data for research purposes.
methodsThe review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and adhered to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, and grey literature sources was conducted, with studies selected based on predefined inclusion criteria. Nine studies from Australia and the United Kingdom were included. Data were extracted and analysed using narrative synthesis to identify key themes and gaps in the literature.
resultsGeneral practice staff broadly supported data sharing for research, citing public benefit and improved healthcare outcomes. However, support was conditional on robust privacy protections, ethical governance, and practical support. Key concerns included patient privacy, commercialisation, trust, consent models, and operational burden. Views on consent were polarised, with preferences varying between opt-in, opt-out, and waiver models. Notably, none of the included studies addressed the perspectives of vulnerable population groups, representing a significant gap in the literature.
conclusionGeneral practice staff are willing to share data for research if ethical and practical safeguards are in place. Future initiatives must prioritise transparency, trust, and inclusivity-particularly by addressing the needs of vulnerable populations-to ensure equitable and sustainable data sharing practices.
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.