Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42828515›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026

Genomic Data Governance Challenges Between Research and Clinical Care: A Scoping Review.

Alice Kim, Bronwen Merner, Mark Taylor, Yingyi Luo, Fabian Cannizzo, Alan Petersen, Clara Gaff, Ainsley J Newson, Kate Marchant, Louse Keogh

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Alice KimCentre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9874-6166
Bronwen MernerCentre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9263-362X
Mark TaylorMelbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Yingyi LuoMelbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Fabian CannizzoFaculty of Arts, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5159-8677
Alan PetersenFaculty of Arts, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2755-0227
Clara GaffDepartment of Paediatrics, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0160-4159
Ainsley J NewsonSydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3460-772X
Kate MarchantLINEAGE GUARD Community Advisory Group, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4063-8119
Louse KeoghCentre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2963-6451

Funding

Commonwealth of Australia, Medical Research Future Fund, 2021 Genomics Health Futures Mission Grant MRF2015531
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe translational nature of genomics highlights the importance of developing a robust genomic data governance framework. To inform the development of such a framework for Australia, we conducted a scoping review to identify genomic data governance and management differences between research and clinical care.

methodsFor this scoping review, four databases were searched and 9528 relevant articles published between January 2013 and October 2024 were identified. After screening, 43 empirical, legal and theoretical/commentary articles were included. The differences reported to affect genomic data governance and management practices across clinical and research settings were extracted and synthesised.

resultsFifteen empirical articles revealed that the 'community' and the 'workforce' reported different consent priorities and differing understandings of the expected benefits of providing genomic data for research. Three legal articles reiterated the influence of regulatory regimes on genomic data practices and rights. Lastly, all twenty-five theoretical/commentary articles were authored by researchers; none by community representatives. While 3/25 articles described the genomic data practices of rare and undiagnosed disease patient populations, 22/25 examined the ethical, legal and social implications arising from genomic data. Among the latter, 14/22 proposed 'solutions' to address identified genomic data challenges associated with consent, returning research genomic data to patients and advancing precision medicine.

conclusionDifferences in understanding, expectations and regulatory regimes can challenge genomic data governance and management practices and perceptions. Considering the implications of these challenges, meaningful community involvement will be critical in developing a governance framework that responsibly leverages genomic data to deliver more equitable health care. LIVED EXPERIENCE OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the Genetic, Undiagnosed and Rare Disease (GUARD) Collaborative - the LINEAGE Consortium's Community Advisory Group partner - Emma Bonser, Monica Ferrie, Alex Fulton, Caroline Kiefer, Kate Marchant, Tony Neilson, Maya Pinn, Tania Prior-Smith, Heather Renton, Susie Roczo-Farkas and Joel Taggart contributed community perspectives and critical reflections during discussions of early findings, informing the development of this manuscript. Kate Marchant, a LINEAGE-GUARD member, is an author of this manuscript, contributing critical revisions and approving the final manuscript.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchGenomicsAustraliaHumansInformed Consentcommunity involvementdata governanceELSIgenomic datahealth equityinformed consentmanagementtranslational sciences

Identifiers

PMID42828515
PMCPMC13633702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.