Mozersky Jessica, Walsh Heidi, Parsons Meredith, McIntosh Tristan, Baldwin Kari, DuBois James M
Bioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
IASSIST Q. 2020 Jan 8;43(4). doi: 10.29173/iq952.
Data sharing maximizes the value of data, which is time and resource intensive to collect. Major funding bodies in the United States (US), like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), require data sharing and researchers frequently share de-identified quantitative data. In contrast, qualitative data are rarely shared in the US but the increasing trend towards data sharing and open science suggest this may be required in future. Qualitative methods are often used to explore sensitive health topics raising unique ethical challenges regarding protecting confidentiality while maintaining enough contextual detail for secondary analyses. Here, we report findings from semi-structured in-depth interviews with 30 data repository curators, 30 qualitative researchers, and 30 IRB staff members to explore their experience and knowledge of QDS. Our findings indicate that all stakeholder groups lack preparedness for QDS. Researchers are the least knowledgeable and are often unfamiliar with the concept of sharing qualitative data in a repository. Curators are highly supportive of QDS, but not all have experienced curating qualitative data sets and indicated they would like guidance and standards specific to QDS. IRB members lack familiarity with QDS although they support it as long as proper legal and regulatory procedures are followed. IRB members and data curators are not prepared to advise researchers on legal and regulatory matters, potentially leaving researchers who have the least knowledge with no guidance. Ethical and productive QDS will require overcoming barriers, creating standards, and changing long held practices among all stakeholder groups.
数据共享能使数据的价值最大化,而数据收集需要耗费大量时间和资源。美国的主要资助机构,如国立卫生研究院(NIH),要求进行数据共享,研究人员也经常共享去识别化的定量数据。相比之下,定性数据在美国很少被共享,但数据共享和开放科学的趋势日益增强,这表明未来可能需要共享定性数据。定性方法常用于探索敏感的健康话题,这在保护保密性的同时为二次分析保留足够的背景细节方面带来了独特的伦理挑战。在此,我们报告了对30名数据存储库管理员、30名定性研究人员和30名机构审查委员会(IRB)工作人员进行半结构化深入访谈的结果,以探讨他们对定性数据共享(QDS)的经验和知识。我们的研究结果表明,所有利益相关者群体对QDS都缺乏准备。研究人员了解最少,通常不熟悉在存储库中共享定性数据的概念。管理员高度支持QDS,但并非所有人都有管理定性数据集的经验,并表示他们希望获得针对QDS的指导和标准。IRB成员虽然支持QDS,但只要遵循适当的法律和监管程序,他们对QDS并不熟悉。IRB成员和数据管理员没有准备好在法律和监管事务上为研究人员提供建议,这可能导致知识最少的研究人员得不到指导。道德且高效的QDS将需要克服障碍、制定标准,并改变所有利益相关者群体长期以来的做法。