43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Issues and Challenges Associated with Data-Sharing in LMICs: Perspectives of Researchers in Thailand

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract.

          Data-sharing helps advance scientific research and assures the benefits of research data are maximized. Previous work has highlighted ethical challenges, especially in low- and middle-income countrie (LMIC) countries. This study examined the views of researchers in a middle-income country, Thailand, regarding the most important data-sharing challenges. The target researchers worked in biomedical and related research. The survey was distributed to 38 academic and health-science institutes, 18 university hospitals, 84 nonuniversity hospitals, and 22 research institutes across Thailand; 229 researchers in clinical/basic and social/behavioral sciences, and pubxxlic health/policy participated. Thai researchers were less concerned with informed consent and the feasibility of conducting research and sharing data, focusing on the importance of safeguards when handling data, including transfer to others, and possible lack of control over subsequent data use. The respondents felt that researchers should decide what types of project data are shareable and which data are likely useful to the scientific community. They were more concerned with appropriate acknowledgment and protecting the legal rights of the primary data collectors and providers. Although they had concerns about data access conditions, they rated sharing sufficient data and metadata to reproduce the analysis of the primary outcomes as highly important. These results are important for future efforts of the LMIC countries to develop efficient data-sharing frameworks and establish institutional data access committees. They highlight the importance, for the sustainability and fairness of these efforts, to ensure that parties in LMIC countries receive appropriate credit and are involved in determining where/when/how their data may be used.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          A systematic review of barriers to data sharing in public health

          Background In the current information age, the use of data has become essential for decision making in public health at the local, national, and global level. Despite a global commitment to the use and sharing of public health data, this can be challenging in reality. No systematic framework or global operational guidelines have been created for data sharing in public health. Barriers at different levels have limited data sharing but have only been anecdotally discussed or in the context of specific case studies. Incomplete systematic evidence on the scope and variety of these barriers has limited opportunities to maximize the value and use of public health data for science and policy. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review of potential barriers to public health data sharing. Documents that described barriers to sharing of routinely collected public health data were eligible for inclusion and reviewed independently by a team of experts. We grouped identified barriers in a taxonomy for a focused international dialogue on solutions. Results Twenty potential barriers were identified and classified in six categories: technical, motivational, economic, political, legal and ethical. The first three categories are deeply rooted in well-known challenges of health information systems for which structural solutions have yet to be found; the last three have solutions that lie in an international dialogue aimed at generating consensus on policies and instruments for data sharing. Conclusions The simultaneous effect of multiple interacting barriers ranging from technical to intangible issues has greatly complicated advances in public health data sharing. A systematic framework of barriers to data sharing in public health will be essential to accelerate the use of valuable information for the global good. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1144) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Broad Consent for Research With Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions.

            Different types of consent are used to obtain human biospecimens for future research. This variation has resulted in confusion regarding what research is permitted, inadvertent constraints on future research, and research proceeding without consent. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center's Department of Bioethics held a workshop to consider the ethical acceptability of addressing these concerns by using broad consent for future research on stored biospecimens. Multiple bioethics scholars, who have written on these issues, discussed the reasons for consent, the range of consent strategies, and gaps in our understanding, and concluded with a proposal for broad initial consent coupled with oversight and, when feasible, ongoing provision of information to donors. This article describes areas of agreement and areas that need more research and dialogue. Given recent proposed changes to the Common Rule, and new guidance regarding storing and sharing data and samples, this is an important and timely topic.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in The BMJ and PLOS Medicine

              Abstract Objectives To explore the effectiveness of data sharing by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in journals with a full data sharing policy and to describe potential difficulties encountered in the process of performing reanalyses of the primary outcomes. Design Survey of published RCTs. Setting PubMed/Medline. Eligibility criteria RCTs that had been submitted and published by The BMJ and PLOS Medicine subsequent to the adoption of data sharing policies by these journals. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was data availability, defined as the eventual receipt of complete data with clear labelling. Primary outcomes were reanalyzed to assess to what extent studies were reproduced. Difficulties encountered were described. Results 37 RCTs (21 from The BMJ and 16 from PLOS Medicine) published between 2013 and 2016 met the eligibility criteria. 17/37 (46%, 95% confidence interval 30% to 62%) satisfied the definition of data availability and 14 of the 17 (82%, 59% to 94%) were fully reproduced on all their primary outcomes. Of the remaining RCTs, errors were identified in two but reached similar conclusions and one paper did not provide enough information in the Methods section to reproduce the analyses. Difficulties identified included problems in contacting corresponding authors and lack of resources on their behalf in preparing the datasets. In addition, there was a range of different data sharing practices across study groups. Conclusions Data availability was not optimal in two journals with a strong policy for data sharing. When investigators shared data, most reanalyses largely reproduced the original results. Data sharing practices need to become more widespread and streamlined to allow meaningful reanalyses and reuse of data. Trial registration Open Science Framework osf.io/c4zke.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Am J Trop Med Hyg
                Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg
                tpmd
                tropmed
                The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
                The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
                0002-9637
                1476-1645
                July 2020
                11 May 2020
                11 May 2020
                : 103
                : 1
                : 528-536
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Tropical Hygiene, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand;
                [2 ]Office of Research Services, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand;
                [3 ]Mahidol Vivax Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand;
                [4 ]Department of Philosophy, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway;
                [5 ]Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
                Author notes
                [* ]Address correspondence to Pornpimon Adams, Office of Research Services, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, 420-6 Ratchawithi Rd., Ratchathewi, Bangkok 10400, Thailand. E-mail: pornpimon.ada@ 123456mahidol.edu

                Disclosure: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand, Approval Number TMEC 18-042. Data are shared in the attachment file.

                Disclaimer: The study participants were informed about the study purpose and answered the questionnaire anonymously; they were free to skip any item they did not wish to answer. David Wendler works for the U.S. NIH Clinical Center. However, the views expressed are the author’s own. They do not represent the position or policy of the U.S. NIH or Federal Government.

                Authors’ addresses: Jaranit Kaewkungwal, Department of Tropical Hygiene, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, E-mail: jaranit.kae@ 123456mahidol.ac.th . Pornpimon Adams, Office of Research Services, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, E-mail: pornpimon.ada@ 123456mahidol.edu . Jetsumon Sattabongkot, Mahidol Vivax Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, E-mail: jetsumon.pra@ 123456mahidol.ac.th . Reidar K. Lie, Department of Philosophy, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, E-mail: reidar.lie@ 123456uib.no . David Wendler, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, E-mail: dwendler@ 123456cc.nih.gov .

                Article
                tpmd190651
                10.4269/ajtmh.19-0651
                7356467
                32394875
                7c1926fb-1eda-4597-9bf9-72a497526169
                © The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 02 September 2019
                : 08 April 2020
                Page count
                Pages: 9
                Categories
                Articles

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                26
                1
                36
                0
                Smart Citations
                26
                1
                36
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content247

                Cited by18

                Most referenced authors263