Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42179735›Full record

ArticleForum, qualitative social research2023

Potentially Identifying Variables Reported in 100 Qualitative Health Research Articles: Implications for Data Sharing and Secondary Analysis.

Annie B Friedrich, Jessica Mozersky, James M DuBois

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Forum, qualitative social research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Annie B FriedrichMedical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.
Jessica MozerskyBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, 4523 Clayton Avenue, Campus Box 8005, St. Louis, MO 63110-1093, USA.
James M DuBoisBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, 4523 Clayton Avenue, Campus Box 8005, St. Louis, MO 63110-1093, USA.

Funding

SHARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DATA: IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING ETHICAL AND PRACTICAL BARRIERSR01HG009351 · NHGRI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI James M Dubois · 2017 to 2026
$4.0M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG009351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing trend in social science research to share qualitative data in a repository for others to access. However, some researchers are reticent to share qualitative data. One major concern is how to de-identify qualitative data while maintaining adequate contextual detail to allow secondary users to meaningfully interpret de-identified data. To help inform discussions regarding qualitative data sharing, we reviewed 100 qualitative health science studies to determine what potentially identifying variables (PIVs) are reported in the published literature. There are relatively few PIVs reported in each qualitative study; the majority of studies (n=64) reported two or fewer PIVs. The most commonly reported PIVs were profession, sex or gender, and age. Our findings can help guide de-identification efforts going forward as presumably the PIVs that are most commonly reported provide essential contextual details that will also be needed by secondary users, while PIVs that are rarely reported may not provide essential contextual information for interpretation of data. This suggests it is possible to share qualitative data that are both de-identified and useful for secondary analysis. As data are shared, we recommend researchers mask study sites, as these may uniquely increase the chance of re-identification.

Indexed as

de-identificationhealth sciencespotentially Identifying variablesqualitative data sharingsecondary analysis

Identifiers

PMID42179735
PMCPMC13195928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.