Place-based generosity during the pandemic: Innovative rural philanthropic organizations' responses to COVID-19 and (re-)building resilient rural communities in Canada
In: Local development & society, Band 5, Heft 1, S. 135-150
ISSN: 2688-3600
5 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Local development & society, Band 5, Heft 1, S. 135-150
ISSN: 2688-3600
In: The Australian yearbook of international law, Band 37, Heft 1, S. 568-595
ISSN: 2666-0229
In: International journal of population data science: (IJPDS), Band 4, Heft 3
ISSN: 2399-4908
BackgroundFree-text data represent a vast, untapped source of rich information to guide research and public service delivery. Free-text data contain a wealth of additional detail that, if more accessible, would clarify and supplement information coded in structured data fields. Personal data usually need to be de-identified or anonymised before they can be used for purposes such as audit and research, but there are major challenges in finding effective methods to de-identify free-text that do not damage data utility as a by-product. The main aim of the TexGov project is to work towards data governance standards to enable free-text data to be used safely for public benefit.
MethodsWe conducted: a rapid literature review to explore the data governance models used in working with free-text data, plus case studies of systems making de-identified free-text data available for research; we engaged with text mining researchers and the general public to explore barriers and solutions in working with free-text; and we outlined (UK) data protection legislation and regulations for context.
ResultsWe reviewed 50 articles and the models of 4 systems providing access to de-identified free-text. The main emerging themes were: i) patient involvement at identifiable and de-identified data stages; ii) questions of consent and notification for the reuse of free-text data; iii) working with identifiable data for Natural Language Processing algorithm development; and iv) de-identification methods and thresholds of reliability.
ConclusionWe have proposed a set of recommendations, including: ensuring public transparency in data flows and uses; adhering to the principles of minimal data extraction; treating de-identified blacklisted free-text as potentially identifiable with use limited to accredited data safe-havens; and, the need to commit to a culture of continuous improvement to understand the relationships between accuracy of de-identification and re-identification risk, so this can be communicated to all stakeholders.
In: International journal of population data science: (IJPDS), Band 8, Heft 4
ISSN: 2399-4908
BackgroundTrusted Research Environments provide a legitimate basis for data access along with a set of technologies to support implementation of the "five-safes" framework for privacy protection. Lack of standard approaches in achieving compliance with the "five-safes" framework results in a diversity of approaches across different TREs. Data access and analysis across multiple TREs has a range of benefits including improved precision of analysis due to larger sample sizes and broader availability of out-of-sample records, particularly in the study of rare conditions. Knowledge of governance approaches used across UK-TREs is limited.
ObjectiveTo document key governance features in major UK-TRE contributing to UK wide analysis and to identify elements that would directly facilitate multi TRE collaborations and federated analysis in future.
MethodWe summarised three main characteristics across 15 major UK-based TREs: 1) data access environment; 2) data access requests and disclosure control procedures; and 3) governance models. We undertook case studies of collaborative analyses conducted in more than one TRE. We identified an array of TREs operating on an equivalent level of governance. We further identify commonly governed TREs with architectural considerations for achieving an equivalent level of information security management system standards to facilitate multi TRE functionality and federated analytics.
ResultsAll 15 UK-TREs allow pooling and analysis of aggregated research outputs only when they have passed human-operated disclosure control checks. Data access requests procedures are unique to each TRE. We also observed a variability in disclosure control procedures across various TREs with no or minimal researcher guidance on best practices for file out request procedures. In 2023, six TREs (40.0%) held ISO 20071 accreditation, while 9 TREs (56.2%) participated in four-nation analyses.
ConclusionSecure analysis of individual-level data from multiple TREs is possible through existing technical solutions but requires development of a well-established governance framework meeting all stakeholder requirements and addressing public and patient concerns. Formation of a standard model could act as the catalyst for evolution of current TREs governance models to a multi TRE ecosystem within the UK and beyond.
Background: Clinical free-text data (eg, outpatient letters or nursing notes) represent a vast, untapped source of rich information that, if more accessible for research, would clarify and supplement information coded in structured data fields. Data usually need to be deidentified or anonymized before they can be reused for research, but there is a lack of established guidelines to govern effective deidentification and use of free-text information and avoid damaging data utility as a by-product. Objective: This study aimed to develop recommendations for the creation of data governance standards to integrate with existing frameworks for personal data use, to enable free-text data to be used safely for research for patient and public benefit. Methods: We outlined data protection legislation and regulations relating to the United Kingdom for context and conducted a rapid literature review and UK-based case studies to explore data governance models used in working with free-text data. We also engaged with stakeholders, including text-mining researchers and the general public, to explore perceived barriers and solutions in working with clinical free-text. Results: We proposed a set of recommendations, including the need for authoritative guidance on data governance for the reuse of free-text data, to ensure public transparency in data flows and uses, to treat deidentified free-text data as potentially identifiable with use limited to accredited data safe havens, and to commit to a culture of continuous improvement to understand the relationships between the efficacy of deidentification and reidentification risks, so this can be communicated to all stakeholders. Conclusions: By drawing together the findings of a combination of activities, we present a position paper to contribute to the development of data governance standards for the reuse of clinical free-text data for secondary purposes. While working in accordance with existing data governance frameworks, there is a need for further work to take forward the recommendations we have proposed, with commitment and investment, to assure and expand the safe reuse of clinical free-text data for public benefit.
BASE