ArticleInternational journal of population data science2026
"If it's gonnae make things better then I don't have any issue": Perspectives of People Who Use Drugs on the Use of Routinely-Collected Data for Research.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Routinely-collected data are increasingly used to study outcomes among marginalised communities, including people who use drugs, because they capture groups often under-represented in traditional research. However, little is known about how this population feels about researchers using their data, particularly given the stigma they frequently encounter. Objectives: This public involvement and engagement study explored the views of people who use(d) drugs on the use of their routinely-collected data in research, with the aim of informing future work in this field. Methods: Participants were recruited through a recovery organisation in Southeast Scotland, UK. Two deliberative focus groups were conducted (n=11 and n=12). Each session began with a short introduction to routinely-collected data and its research uses, followed by discussion guided by a topic schedule and a creative participatory activity. Thematic analysis was carried out using NVivo v15. Results: Five overarching themes were identified. Participants expressed very low awareness that their data were being used in research and highlighted the need for clearer and more accessible transparency about data processes. Concerns about consent and personal control were common, with many wanting greater involvement or choice in how their information is used. Participants strongly supported data use when it served a clear and meaningful public benefit and when researchers were held accountable for how findings were used. Discussions also reflected worries about the accuracy, completeness, and fairness of the data held about them, particularly where misunderstandings or assumptions might be recorded. Underpinning all themes was a pervasive sense of fear and mistrust toward services that collect data, which participants felt could limit honest disclosure and ultimately affect data quality. Conclusions: People who use drugs were broadly supportive of their routinely-collected data being used in research with clear social value and transparency. However, pervasive mistrust of data-collecting services may affect data quality and should be carefully considered by researchers.
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.