ArticleInternational journal of population data science2026
A survey of public attitudes toward secondary research governance oversight: Evidence from Singapore's TRUST platform.
Article in International journal of population data science, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Health data platforms and biobanks worldwide face challenges in maintaining social licence to operate (SLO) while enabling beneficial research. While technical safeguards can mitigate privacy risks, public expectations for governance oversight processes remain unclear. This study examines public attitudes toward health data governance oversight using Singapore's national TRUST platform as a case study. Methods: We conducted an online survey of 453 respondents from the Health Opinion Panel Singapore (HOPS) panel in Singapore between September and October 2024. Respondents evaluated four hypothetical research scenarios involving different data users (government agencies, overseas private companies, international universities) and indicated whether additional Ministry of Health (MOH) review should be required despite 2-5 weeks procedural delays. We analysed support rates for this additional review, reasons for support or opposition, and responses about privacy-utility trade-offs. Results: Strong public support for MOH oversight emerged across all scenarios (80-89%), with government accountability as the primary reason (68-76% of supporters). Support was the highest for research involving overseas private companies (89%) and lowest for domestic government research (80%). Respondents demonstrated sophisticated risk-benefit, context-dependent reasoning: 69% accepted privacy risks for direct personal benefits (retaining contact information for cancer risk notification), while 82% endorsed stringent protections for vulnerable populations (CCTV monitoring for rare disease research despite research impediments). Conclusions: The Singaporean public expects comprehensive ethical oversight extending beyond privacy protection to encompass accountability, scientific validity, and social justice considerations. Consistent acceptance of procedural delays demonstrates that SLO depends on procedural justice rather than operational efficiency. These findings support implementing risk-proportionate governance frameworks that maintain robust baseline oversight while allowing context-sensitive intensification based on research characteristics and stakeholder involvement.
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.