公开小组审查申请并向申请人提问:团队成员和公众贡献者讨论透明和包容的数据访问审查方法

Kirsteen Campbell, Rebecca Whitehorn, Simon Browning, Rebecca Harmston, Ray Harris, Szu-Chia Huang, Dianna Moylan, Karen Williams, Jacqueline Oakley, Katharine Evans, Stela McLachlan, Richard Thomas, Emma Turner, Robin Flaig, Andy Boyd
{"title":"公开小组审查申请并向申请人提问:团队成员和公众贡献者讨论透明和包容的数据访问审查方法","authors":"Kirsteen Campbell, Rebecca Whitehorn, Simon Browning, Rebecca Harmston, Ray Harris, Szu-Chia Huang, Dianna Moylan, Karen Williams, Jacqueline Oakley, Katharine Evans, Stela McLachlan, Richard Thomas, Emma Turner, Robin Flaig, Andy Boyd","doi":"10.23889/ijpds.v8i2.2249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesWe created a panel with members of the public and longitudinal study participants who review our data access requests. This panel forms an integral part of our data access application process, giving the public a say who can access the data for research.
 MethodsWe advertised our lay member vacancies using social media, newsletters, word of mouth and the internet. We appointed six people to the public panel. Our panel includes study participants, NHS service users, parents, carers, and people with experience of disability, neurodiversity, and long-term health conditions.
 The Panel Terms of Reference were created with help from stakeholders and study teams involved in longitudinal studies that involve the public in data access applications. This ensured that the purpose of the panel was clear. The panel reviews lay summaries and makes sure that researchers have adequate public involvement in their project.
 ResultsPanel members have reviewed 28 applications. Researchers present their research at an online meeting with the panel then answer questions from the panel members. We publish meeting minutes on our website for transparency.
 A 6-month review was overwhelmingly positive - all panel members indicated they felt valued. They felt able to challenge and question researchers as part of the data access application process. This provides a level of public scrutiny to our work.
 “I feel there’s a real value in the panel. You get a real sense that this has got such potential to make a contribution.” (panel member)
 We are further developing the Panel Terms of Reference with panel members. We will consider additional areas of responsibility, for example, public benefit review.
 ConclusionWe regularly review how to improve public involvement in our work. The panel has proven its value during our application process. Therefore we are exploring with the panel a new approach to assess the public benefit of applications and what is meant by ‘public benefit research’.","PeriodicalId":132937,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Population Data Science","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A public panel reviews applications and questions applicants: Team member and public contributor discuss a transparent and inclusive approach to data access reviews\",\"authors\":\"Kirsteen Campbell, Rebecca Whitehorn, Simon Browning, Rebecca Harmston, Ray Harris, Szu-Chia Huang, Dianna Moylan, Karen Williams, Jacqueline Oakley, Katharine Evans, Stela McLachlan, Richard Thomas, Emma Turner, Robin Flaig, Andy Boyd\",\"doi\":\"10.23889/ijpds.v8i2.2249\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ObjectivesWe created a panel with members of the public and longitudinal study participants who review our data access requests. This panel forms an integral part of our data access application process, giving the public a say who can access the data for research.
 MethodsWe advertised our lay member vacancies using social media, newsletters, word of mouth and the internet. We appointed six people to the public panel. Our panel includes study participants, NHS service users, parents, carers, and people with experience of disability, neurodiversity, and long-term health conditions.
 The Panel Terms of Reference were created with help from stakeholders and study teams involved in longitudinal studies that involve the public in data access applications. This ensured that the purpose of the panel was clear. The panel reviews lay summaries and makes sure that researchers have adequate public involvement in their project.
 ResultsPanel members have reviewed 28 applications. Researchers present their research at an online meeting with the panel then answer questions from the panel members. We publish meeting minutes on our website for transparency.
 A 6-month review was overwhelmingly positive - all panel members indicated they felt valued. They felt able to challenge and question researchers as part of the data access application process. This provides a level of public scrutiny to our work.
 “I feel there’s a real value in the panel. You get a real sense that this has got such potential to make a contribution.” (panel member)
 We are further developing the Panel Terms of Reference with panel members. We will consider additional areas of responsibility, for example, public benefit review.
 ConclusionWe regularly review how to improve public involvement in our work. The panel has proven its value during our application process. Therefore we are exploring with the panel a new approach to assess the public benefit of applications and what is meant by ‘public benefit research’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":132937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for Population Data Science\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for Population Data Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v8i2.2249\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Population Data Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v8i2.2249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们创建了一个由公众成员和纵向研究参与者组成的小组,他们审查我们的数据访问请求。这个小组是我们数据访问申请程序的一个组成部分,让公众知道谁可以访问研究数据。 方法我们利用社交媒体、通讯、口口相传和互联网为非专业成员招聘做广告。我们任命了六个人参加公众小组。我们的小组包括研究参与者、NHS服务使用者、父母、护理人员以及有残疾经历、神经多样性和长期健康状况的人。小组的职权范围是在涉及公众参与数据访问应用的纵向研究的利益攸关方和研究小组的帮助下制定的。这确保了小组的目的是明确的。专家小组的评审总结并确保研究人员在他们的项目中有足够的公众参与。结果小组成员审阅了28份申请。研究人员在与小组的在线会议上展示他们的研究,然后回答小组成员的问题。为了提高透明度,我们在网站上公布了会议纪要。 为期6个月的评估结果非常积极——所有小组成员都表示他们觉得自己受到了重视。他们觉得能够挑战和质疑研究人员作为数据访问应用过程的一部分。这为我们的工作提供了一定程度的公众监督。“我觉得这个小组有真正的价值。你会真正感觉到它有潜力做出贡献。(小组成员) 我们正与小组成员进一步制订小组职权范围。我们将考虑更多的责任领域,例如,公共利益审查。结论我们定期检讨如何提高公众对我们工作的参与。在我们的申请过程中,面板已经证明了它的价值。因此,我们正在与专家组一起探索一种新的方法来评估应用程序的公共利益,以及“公共利益研究”的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A public panel reviews applications and questions applicants: Team member and public contributor discuss a transparent and inclusive approach to data access reviews
ObjectivesWe created a panel with members of the public and longitudinal study participants who review our data access requests. This panel forms an integral part of our data access application process, giving the public a say who can access the data for research. MethodsWe advertised our lay member vacancies using social media, newsletters, word of mouth and the internet. We appointed six people to the public panel. Our panel includes study participants, NHS service users, parents, carers, and people with experience of disability, neurodiversity, and long-term health conditions. The Panel Terms of Reference were created with help from stakeholders and study teams involved in longitudinal studies that involve the public in data access applications. This ensured that the purpose of the panel was clear. The panel reviews lay summaries and makes sure that researchers have adequate public involvement in their project. ResultsPanel members have reviewed 28 applications. Researchers present their research at an online meeting with the panel then answer questions from the panel members. We publish meeting minutes on our website for transparency. A 6-month review was overwhelmingly positive - all panel members indicated they felt valued. They felt able to challenge and question researchers as part of the data access application process. This provides a level of public scrutiny to our work. “I feel there’s a real value in the panel. You get a real sense that this has got such potential to make a contribution.” (panel member) We are further developing the Panel Terms of Reference with panel members. We will consider additional areas of responsibility, for example, public benefit review. ConclusionWe regularly review how to improve public involvement in our work. The panel has proven its value during our application process. Therefore we are exploring with the panel a new approach to assess the public benefit of applications and what is meant by ‘public benefit research’.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Using novel data linkage of biobank data with administrative health data to inform genomic analysis for future precision medicine treatment of congenital heart disease Common governance model: a way to avoid data segregation between existing trusted research environment Federated learning for generating synthetic data: a scoping review Health Data Governance for Research Use in Alberta Establishment of a birth-to-education cohort of 1 million Palestinian refugees using electronic medical records and electronic education records
×
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