How do we measure the costs, benefits, and harms of sharing data from biomedical studies? A protocol for a scoping review.

Open research Europe Pub Date : 2025-01-14 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.12688/openreseurope.16063.2
Lauren Maxwell, Priya Shreedhar, Ankur Krishnan
{"title":"How do we measure the costs, benefits, and harms of sharing data from biomedical studies? A protocol for a scoping review.","authors":"Lauren Maxwell, Priya Shreedhar, Ankur Krishnan","doi":"10.12688/openreseurope.16063.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The benefits of sharing participant-level data, including clinical or epidemiological data, genomic data, high-dimensional imaging data, or human-derived samples, from biomedical studies have been widely touted and may be taken for granted. As investments in data sharing and reuse efforts continue to grow, understanding the cost and positive and negative effects of data sharing for research participants, the general public, individual researchers, research and development, clinical practice, and public health is of growing importance. In this scoping review, we will identify and summarize existing evidence on the positive and negative impacts and costs of data sharing and how they are measured.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>Eligible studies will report on qualitative or quantitative approaches for measuring the cost of data sharing or its impact on participant privacy, individual or public health, researcher's careers, clinical or public health practice, or research or development. The systematic search strategy uses MeSH and text terms and is tailored for Ovid Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. We will apply the Arskey and O'Malley scoping review methodology. We selected a scoping rather than a systematic review approach to address multiple related questions and provide guidance related to an emerging field. Two reviewers will conduct the title-abstract and full-text screening and data charting independently. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus and results will be summarized in a narrative form.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Research participants, investigators, regulatory groups, ethics review committees, data protection officers, and funders cannot make informed decisions or policies about data reuse without appropriate means of measuring the effects, positive or negative, and cost of data sharing.</p>","PeriodicalId":74359,"journal":{"name":"Open research Europe","volume":"3 ","pages":"151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11757919/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open research Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.16063.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The benefits of sharing participant-level data, including clinical or epidemiological data, genomic data, high-dimensional imaging data, or human-derived samples, from biomedical studies have been widely touted and may be taken for granted. As investments in data sharing and reuse efforts continue to grow, understanding the cost and positive and negative effects of data sharing for research participants, the general public, individual researchers, research and development, clinical practice, and public health is of growing importance. In this scoping review, we will identify and summarize existing evidence on the positive and negative impacts and costs of data sharing and how they are measured.

Methods and analysis: Eligible studies will report on qualitative or quantitative approaches for measuring the cost of data sharing or its impact on participant privacy, individual or public health, researcher's careers, clinical or public health practice, or research or development. The systematic search strategy uses MeSH and text terms and is tailored for Ovid Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. We will apply the Arskey and O'Malley scoping review methodology. We selected a scoping rather than a systematic review approach to address multiple related questions and provide guidance related to an emerging field. Two reviewers will conduct the title-abstract and full-text screening and data charting independently. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus and results will be summarized in a narrative form.

Conclusion: Research participants, investigators, regulatory groups, ethics review committees, data protection officers, and funders cannot make informed decisions or policies about data reuse without appropriate means of measuring the effects, positive or negative, and cost of data sharing.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Global language geography and language history: challenges and opportunities. Transformative social innovation and rural collaborative workspaces: assembling community economies in Austria and Greece. What's in it for citizen scientists? An Analysis of Participant Inclusivity in Citizen Science Projects in Advanced Physics Research. Atacama Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope (AtLAST) science: Probing the transient and time-variable sky. How do we measure the costs, benefits, and harms of sharing data from biomedical studies? A protocol for a scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1