ArticleInternational journal of population data science2025
Integrating public engagement to promote transparent data use in a new UK-wide birth cohort.
Article in International journal of population data science, 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
Public engagement is an important mechanism for ensuring that the voices of the public are integrated into study design and data use. The commissioning of a new UK-wide birth cohort study by the UKRI Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Early Life Cohort Feasibility Study (ELC-FS), necessitated renewed dialogue with the public about the acceptability of conducting a large-scale study of this kind. The ELC-FS recruited several thousand children in their first year of life, using an administrative data sampling frame, an 'opt-out' recruitment approach, and embedded linkages to education, health and social care administrative data. The study faced many complexities and challenges to achieve this: the sampling frame had not been used for this purpose before, required negotiation with different data holders in the four UK nations, and the study needed to ensure transparency around how participants' administrative and survey data would be used. Conducting public engagement projects with parents of young children prior to the study's fieldwork was essential to understanding more about the public acceptability of data use in ELC-FS. Evidence from these projects was used to support negotiations with data holders, as well as in guiding best practice for informing participants about their data use and data linkage. This paper summarises the evidence from these public engagement projects relating to data transparency and enacting participant choice and control of the use of their data in the study. We describe how this evidence was implemented in three key study design areas: sampling and recruitment, the collection and use of survey data, and seeking participant consent to link administrative records to individual-level survey data. We also present evidence from the study's fieldwork about participants' acceptability of the survey design and transparency around data use, from recruitment to data collection and processing.
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.