Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Formative Research
Date Submitted: Jun 10, 2023
Date Accepted: Jan 7, 2024
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Survey of U.S. institutional signing officials (SOs) on data sharing policies and practices
ABSTRACT
Background:
Background:
The rapid growth in human research data, storage, and analysis tools, and skilled researchers combined with the declining costs and new federal policies are creating an immense drive for research data sharing. At the same, triangulating various types of human research data proportionately increase the risks of re-identification when used for secondary research purposes. Various institutional gatekeepers are involved in the governance of human data for research. Of those with data governance responsibilities, signing officials (SOs) most often serve as signatories on research data submission and access request agreements between institutions. Although SOs play important leadership roles in research data compliance, we know surprisingly little about the ways in which new data management and sharing (DMS) requirements for researchers adopted at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) affects SO’s data governance responsibilities.
Objective:
The purpose of this study was to understand the potential impacts of new DMS policies on secondary data governance of genomic and related health data among SOs in the United States
Methods:
We administered online surveys to 56 institutional SOs working at biomedical research institutions across the United States. We investigated their understanding about where research data supported with extramural funding are deposited, how researchers outside the institution access these data, and what happens to the data after grant funding ends.
Results:
We found SOs frequently approve duplicate data deposits and impose stricter access controls when data use limitations are unclear or unspecified. In addition, only 23.08% of SOs reported that their institutions track where data from federally funded projects are deposited after funding for the project sunsets. Consequently, investigators often deposit their scientific data into “an NIH-funded repository” to meet the DMS requirements, but also within the “institution’s own repository” or “a third-party repository.
Conclusions:
Our findings inform five policy recommendations and best practices for researchers, institutional authorities, and institutional review boards to improve coordination and develop comprehensive and consistent data governance policies that balance the need for scientific progress with effective human data protections. Clinical Trial: N/A
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.