Cargando…

Data Access Committees

BACKGROUND: Sharing de-identified individual-level health research data is widely promoted and has many potential benefits. However there are also some potential harms, such as misuse of data and breach of participant confidentiality. One way to promote the benefits of sharing while ameliorating its...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheah, Phaik Yeong, Piasecki, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6998828/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32013947
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-0453-z
_version_ 1783493904776036352
author Cheah, Phaik Yeong
Piasecki, Jan
author_facet Cheah, Phaik Yeong
Piasecki, Jan
author_sort Cheah, Phaik Yeong
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sharing de-identified individual-level health research data is widely promoted and has many potential benefits. However there are also some potential harms, such as misuse of data and breach of participant confidentiality. One way to promote the benefits of sharing while ameliorating its potential harms is through the adoption of a managed access approach where data requests are channeled through a Data Access Committee (DAC), rather than making data openly available without restrictions. A DAC, whether a formal or informal group of individuals, has the responsibility of reviewing and assessing data access requests. Many individual groups, consortiums, institutional and independent DACs have been established but there is currently no widely accepted framework for their organization and function. MAIN TEXT: We propose that DACs, should have the role of both promotion of data sharing and protection of data subjects, their communities, data producers, their institutions and the scientific enterprise. We suggest that data access should be granted by DACs as long as the data reuse has potential social value and provided there is low risk of foreseeable harms. To promote data sharing and to motivate data producers, DACs should encourage secondary uses that are consistent with the interests of data producers and their own institutions. Given the suggested roles of DACs, there should be transparent, simple and clear application procedures for data access. The approach to review of applications should be proportionate to the potential risks involved. DACs should be established within institutional and legal frameworks with clear lines of accountability, terms of reference and membership. We suggest that DACs should not be modelled after research ethics committees (RECs) because their functions and goals of review are different from those of RECs. DAC reviews should be guided by the principles of public health ethics instead of research ethics. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we have suggested a framework under which DACs should operate, how they should be organised, and how to constitute them.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6998828
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69988282020-02-10 Data Access Committees Cheah, Phaik Yeong Piasecki, Jan BMC Med Ethics Debate BACKGROUND: Sharing de-identified individual-level health research data is widely promoted and has many potential benefits. However there are also some potential harms, such as misuse of data and breach of participant confidentiality. One way to promote the benefits of sharing while ameliorating its potential harms is through the adoption of a managed access approach where data requests are channeled through a Data Access Committee (DAC), rather than making data openly available without restrictions. A DAC, whether a formal or informal group of individuals, has the responsibility of reviewing and assessing data access requests. Many individual groups, consortiums, institutional and independent DACs have been established but there is currently no widely accepted framework for their organization and function. MAIN TEXT: We propose that DACs, should have the role of both promotion of data sharing and protection of data subjects, their communities, data producers, their institutions and the scientific enterprise. We suggest that data access should be granted by DACs as long as the data reuse has potential social value and provided there is low risk of foreseeable harms. To promote data sharing and to motivate data producers, DACs should encourage secondary uses that are consistent with the interests of data producers and their own institutions. Given the suggested roles of DACs, there should be transparent, simple and clear application procedures for data access. The approach to review of applications should be proportionate to the potential risks involved. DACs should be established within institutional and legal frameworks with clear lines of accountability, terms of reference and membership. We suggest that DACs should not be modelled after research ethics committees (RECs) because their functions and goals of review are different from those of RECs. DAC reviews should be guided by the principles of public health ethics instead of research ethics. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we have suggested a framework under which DACs should operate, how they should be organised, and how to constitute them. BioMed Central 2020-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6998828/ /pubmed/32013947 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-0453-z Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Debate
Cheah, Phaik Yeong
Piasecki, Jan
Data Access Committees
title Data Access Committees
title_full Data Access Committees
title_fullStr Data Access Committees
title_full_unstemmed Data Access Committees
title_short Data Access Committees
title_sort data access committees
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6998828/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32013947
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-0453-z
work_keys_str_mv AT cheahphaikyeong dataaccesscommittees
AT piaseckijan dataaccesscommittees